An honest answer for a newbie, please.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
There is plenty of my post which should not require elaboration.

---

There isn't plenty of your post at all.

quote:

---

In order for your theory of 'no causality' or whatever you'd like to call it to have scientific merit it should be falsifiable.

---

Covered this. Did you miss that part? It is cosmology. It is falsifiable by the same means as any other science. It just happens to be right at the edge of human knowledge at the moment.

quote:

---

Rather than scientifically plausible, I find your argumental approach to your problem of creation ex nihilo as wishful thinking and an argument which seems to be only supported by semantics.

---

Rather than helpful, I find your posturing useless and distasteful.But here we go...From No webpage found at provided URL: http://superstringtheory.com/blackh/blackh2a.html

quote:

---

The problem with the type of focusing of light that defines the presence of a black hole is that once it starts, the focusing equation says that it ends in utter disaster. Once a bundle of null geodesics becomes trapped by crossing to q<0, within a finite distance along each geodesic, q> -Infinity, the geodesics will cross at a point, and the transverse area of the bundle will go to zero. When this happens, the necessary conditions for the existence and uniqueness of these geodesics are violated, and it's no longer possible to use the geodesic equations to predict what happens to the geodesics after they cross.
The spacetime will then exhibit one of the two possible behaviors:
1. [red]The spacetime curvature in this region remains finite for all observers, but notion of predictability for the spacetime breaks down, and evolution of the spacetime can no longer be uniquely predicted from a set of initial data.[/red]
2. The spacetime curvature in this region becomes infinite for all or some observers, so that there simply is no possibility of extending geodesics past the point where they cross, they simply end there. The spacetime as a whole retains its predictability but the region contains a spacetime singularity where the paths of observers simply end their existence, and spacetime itself can no longer be defined.

---

From Quentin Smith Bigbang » Internet Infidels

quote:

---

[red]A singularity is a place where the classical concepts of space and time break down as do all the known laws of physics because they are all formulated on a classical space-time background.[/red] In this paper it is claimed that this breakdown is not merely a result of our ignorance of the correct theory but that it represents a fundamental limitation to our ability to predict the future, a limitation that is analogous but additional to the limitation imposed by the normal quantum-mechanical uncertainty principle.

---

From Page not found - N2Net

quote:

---

Unfortunately, the matter inside a singularity must concede to new laws totally unlike our currently trusted physical theories, for physics cannot solve equations once they have produced an answer of infinity.

---

Same source as above.

quote:

---

It is important to realize that this singularity meant the origination of the physical universe, and not simply the creation of matter. Time as we know it most likely could not continue further into the past before the big bang. Neither would there be space in which any matter could exist.

---

And again...

quote:

---

However, if "nothing" exists without spacetime, then there would be no past which could exist before the big bang. The singularity would be a complete temporal boundary in the past; time itself would have come into existence then. It would hence be meaningless to talk of what came "before," in the same way in which it would be meaningless to ask what caused the big bang, since causality requires time, and time did not exist until the big bang occurred.

---

quote--You seemed to understand my initial post by disagreeing with it in your response and saying:][/quote]Your first post wasn't the problem. It was this gem that threw me, seeming to support precisely that to which you were objecting.

quote:

---

But in non-existence, you have time going from 0 to 0. Cause, nor effect can occur here.

---

------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl:
Forgiven - to the best of my knowledge, we do not currently have anything more for abiogenesis than hypotheses. These hypotheses are being tested in repeatable, falsifiable etc. ways. When we have a well-supported model, we will have a theory. And it will, indeed be scientific, because it will have been tested, and those tests will be repeatable.

​

You jump to abiogenesis from macroevolution because we've demonstrated that evolution is scientific by the above definition. Unless you'd like to tell us why it's not?

---

hi karlfirst, i didn't jump from one to the other, i used m.e. as an example only, and when it wasn't liked as an example i tried to find one that would be better liked... also, isn't there a vast difference between evolution and macroevolution?as for your "..we do not currently have anything more for abiogenesis than hypotheses. These hypotheses are being tested in repeatable, falsifiable etc. ways. When we have a well-supported model, we will have a theory. And it will, indeed be scientific, because it will have been tested, and those tests will be repeatable."how can (not saying it can't, i just don't have the specialized knowledge) it be falsifiable, much less repeatable? what would have to happen in order for abiogenesis to be proven?

"There isn't plenty of your post at all."
--What kind of remark is that supposed to be?"Covered this. Did you miss that part? It is cosmology. It is falsifiable by the same means as any other science. It just happens to be right at the edge of human knowledge at the moment."
--You have not exemplified the potential falsifications of your 'theory'. All you said earlier is, 'Sure. It ought to be settled by cosmologists, eventually'. Implying that you currently know of no extant potential falsifications but hope that it will be settled in the future. Not sufficient. You say that my potential falsification is 'cosmology', so what is that supposed to mean? You need to expand on this."Rather than helpful, I find your posturing useless and distasteful."
--Distasteful? Do you mean that as to say 'objectionable', or offensive? If the latter, I see no reason at all for that to be indicative. I'm not here to bash on your theories, opinions, or objections, but I am here to discuss their merit. I would encourage you to likewise consider this line of thought. You can keep telling yourself that my position and inquiries are ridiculous and futile, just don't expect it to take you anywhere or have beneficial product come out of discussion.--Your sources:http://superstringtheory.com/blackh/blackh2a.html
Quentin Smith Bigbang » Internet Infidels
Page not found - N2Net--Your quotations from these articles do not give this thread anything new. As I explained earlier, you are still dealing with extant space-time, no matter the distortion or infinitesimal properties. You do not have a singularity to work with, you have "0". Why do you feel that working with the properties of a singularity is applicable to the initial predicament?
--That classical physics break down at the singularity does not seem to help you.
--Your last source also illustrates the semantics of the argument in saying:

quote:

---

It would hence be meaningless to talk of what came "before," in the same way in which it would be meaningless to ask what caused the big bang, since causality requires time, and time did not exist until the big bang occurred.

---

--The problem is that whether causality is extant, you have no where for 'effect' to occur either. Whence, "But in non-existence, you have time going from 0 to 0. Cause, nor effect can occur here"------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"There isn't plenty of your post at all."
--What kind of remark is that supposed to be?

---

The kind of comment that points out that you are taking insubstantial pot-shots from the sidelines. Substantial potshots are much appreciated.

quote:

---

You have not exemplified the potential falsifications of your 'theory'.

---

Ok. I am getting damned tired of this tactic. I never said that I have a non-causality theory. You made that up, probably because it sounds a bit silly. What I said is that under certain conditions causality breaks down-- predictability breaks down.

quote:

---

All you said earlier is, 'Sure. It ought to be settled by cosmologists, eventually'. Implying...

---

Implying that there are people working in the very areas concerned. Want I should spell it out for you? It is simple really. Either cosmologists determine that causality continues to or through a singularity or they determine that it does not.

quote:

---

potential falsifications but hope that it will be settled in the future. Not sufficient.

---

Please, TC. This is trite.Do you mean that as to say 'objectionable', or offensive?[/b][/quote]Distasteful is softer and, well... not so much objectionable as sickening.

quote:

---

If the latter, I see no reason at all for that to be indicative. I'm not here to bash on your theories, opinions, or objections, but I am here to discuss their merit.

---

Then discuss away, but give me something to bite into and not just nos-like oneliners.

quote:

---

You can keep telling yourself that my position and inquiries are ridiculous and futile, just don't expect it to take you anywhere or have beneficial product come out of discussion.

---

You, likewise, can pretend that you have said something important.

quote:

---

Your quotations from these articles do not give this thread anything new.

---

How can you miss:From No webpage found at provided URL: http://superstringtheory.com/blackh/blackh2a.html

quote:

---

but notion of predictability for the spacetime breaks down

---

Do you see that part about about predictability breaking down?From Quentin Smith Bigbang » Internet Infidels[quote]A singularity is a place where the classical concepts of space and time break down[/b][/quote]Classical concepts of space and time break down.From Page not found - N2Net

quote:

---

Unfortunately, the matter inside a singularity must concede to new laws totally unlike our currently trusted physical theories, for physics cannot solve equations once they have produced an answer of infinity.

---

Same source as above.

quote:

---

Time as we know it most likely could not continue further into the past before the big bang. Neither would there be space in which any matter could exist.

---

No space. No time. How is a cause to preceed an effect when there is no time? Likewise how is there a cause or an effect when there is no space? Certainly, if such things can be they are nothing like we currently conceive of them. And I was discussing, with forgiven, a very classical kind of causality.And again...

quote:

---

It would hence be meaningless to talk of what came "before," in the same way in which it would be meaningless to ask what caused the big bang, since causality requires time, and time did not exist until the big bang occurred.

---

Notice. Here is support for the idea that there was no 'before' and hence causality doesn't make sense. Also, this is support for my contention that causality requires time.

quote:

---

As I explained earlier, you are still dealing with extant space-time, no matter the distortion or infinitesimal properties.

---

What difference does it make? I have shown that predictability breaks down. This objection is nonsensible.

quote:

---

You do not have a singularity to work with, you have "0".

---

ummmm..... and this makes your case better? I made this statement and you went off about singulaities aren't actually zero but merely infinitely small.

quote:

---

Why do you feel that working with the properties of a singularity is applicable to the initial predicament?

---

What predicament? You mean why are the properties of singularity applicable to the BB singularity? ????

quote:

---

That classical physics break down at the singularity does not seem to help you.

---

Why the hell not? Classical physics IS CAUSALITY.

quote:

---

The problem is that whether causality is extant, you have no where for 'effect' to occur either. Whence, "But in non-existence, you have time going from 0 to 0. Cause, nor effect can occur here"

---

No kidding ???? This is precisely what I have been saying. Are you for me or against me? You seem to be playing both sides. This is why I am so confused and just a tad irritated with you.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com[This message has been edited by John, 11-22-2002]

"Ok. I am getting damned tired of this tactic. I never said that I have a non-causality theory. You made that up, probably because it sounds a bit silly. What I said is that under certain conditions causality breaks down-- predictability breaks down."
--Yep, I 'made it up' I don't know what else to call it. Potential falsification is still non-existent here. The initial argument is that you say that producing a universe ex nihilo void of supernatural incorporation is entirely feasible because the universe 'doesn't need a cause' or some such. Claiming it as scientifically applicable requires potential falsification for this theory."Implying that there are people working in the very areas concerned. Want I should spell it out for you? It is simple really. Either cosmologists determine that causality continues to or through a singularity or they determine that it does not."
--This is not the initial argument, see above. It doesn't matter if causality breaks down at a singularity, evidently I must over emphasize this."Please, TC. This is trite."
--Trite? That's almost funny John, you've already pretty much indicated that you, nor cosmologists have the answer to your problem."Then discuss away, but give me something to bite into and not just nos-like oneliners."
--This has been done repetitively."No space. No time. How is a cause to preceed an effect when there is no time? Likewise how is there a cause or an effect when there is no space? Certainly, if such things can be they are nothing like we currently conceive of them. And I was discussing, with forgiven, a very classical kind of causality."
--Why do you think I said, 'But in non-existence, you have time going from 0 to 0. Cause, nor effect can occur here.' Because it doesn't matter how you look at it, if there exists no space-time, you don't get space-time. Arguing that causality breaks down at a singularity, has no impact on its veracity."Notice. Here is support for the idea that there was no 'before' and hence causality doesn't make sense. Also, this is support for my contention that causality requires time."
--Also notice, effect does not make sense either. Pertaining to space=-time, 0=0, no matter what you do, 0 is not going to bring anything into existence, let alone space-time. What you want to get is space-time."What difference does it make? I have shown that predictability breaks down. This objection is nonsensible."
--It is fully sensible, again the singularity and its dimensional properties and its unconformity with classical physics is irrelevant, let us move from this."ummmm..... and this makes your case better? I made this statement and you went off about singulaities aren't actually zero but merely infinitely small."
--That's right! The reason for that is because in a singularity space as well as time still exist, but you don't have the luxury of working with them, because you have zero!"What predicament? You mean why are the properties of singularity applicable to the BB singularity? ????"
--No, whether the BB singularity is similar or even equivalent to frozen hole singularities makes no matter. The fact is you have zero to work with, you need an effect, and the effect is the existence of space time. Seeing as we've ruled out causality, I am wondering what other scientifically applicable mechanism you have."No kidding ???? This is precisely what I have been saying. Are you for me or against me? You seem to be playing both sides. This is why I am so confused and just a tad irritated with you."
--I explain this above, since we've ruled out causality, how do you get anything other than 0 space, 0 time, 0 matter, 0 energy, absolutely nothing with no extant entity to work with, let along a singularity.-------------------[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 11-22-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
The initial argument is that you say that producing a universe ex nihilo void of supernatural incorporation is entirely feasible because the universe 'doesn't need a cause' or some such.

---

Well, now we've established that you don't have any idea what the conversation was about prior to your joining it.

quote:

---

This is not the initial argument, see above.

---

Evidently you must brush up on your reading skills. That or you are intentionally misrepresenting what I said.

quote:

---

It doesn't matter if causality breaks down at a singularity, evidently I must over emphasize this.

---

And of course, you are the final authority on this. Lets have some substance. I should take your word for it?

quote:

---

Trite? That's almost funny John, you've already pretty much indicated that you, nor cosmologists have the answer to your problem.

---

Once you figure out what I am talking about, get back to me.

quote:

---

This has been done repetitively.

---

Certainly you believe this.

quote:

---

Why do you think I said, 'But in non-existence, you have time going from 0 to 0. Cause, nor effect can occur here.' Because it doesn't matter how you look at it, if there exists no space-time, you don't get space-time. Arguing that causality breaks down at a singularity, has no impact on its veracity.

---

All very interesting, but entirely your construct not mine. This is where we are missing each other. I didn't make any argument about something coming from nothing. I made the argument that causality breaks down at a singularity such as the BB and so an ARGUMENT BASED ON CAUSALITY isn't applicable.

quote:

---

Also notice, effect does not make sense either. Pertaining to space=-time, 0=0, no matter what you do, 0 is not going to bring anything into existence, let alone space-time. What you want to get is space-time.

---

Interesting, but still not the argument I made. See how easy this would have been if you had just explained yourself? I foolishly assumed you were criticising an argument that I had made. Go figure.

quote:

---

It is fully sensible, again the singularity and its dimensional properties and its unconformity with classical physics is irrelevant, let us move from this.

---

Again, you are arguing something entirely differnet than what I was arguing.

quote:

---

That's right! The reason for that is because in a singularity space as well as time still exist, but you don't have the luxury of working with them, because you have zero!

---

Wow. Score another point against an argument I did not make.

quote:

---

The fact is you have zero to work with

---

Ok. Now that I understand what you are arguing against, it is making sense. Though it is funny that you are arguing against an argument I didn't make.

quote:

---

I explain this above, since we've ruled out causality, how do you get anything other than 0 space, 0 time, 0 matter, 0 energy, absolutely nothing with no extant entity to work with, let along a singularity.

---

How would you get anything with causality? Seems like you have a better chance getting something from nothing without causality than with it. Good thing this doesn't have anything to do with the argument I actually made though, which, in review, was that an argument based on causality is meaningless under circumstances where causality-- predictablility if you will-- breaks down.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

"Well, now we've established that you don't have any idea what the conversation was about prior to your joining it.Evidently you must brush up on your reading skills. That or you are intentionally misrepresenting what I said."
--What I mean is that this is what our discussion is revolving around. So why didn't you respond to the segment where I asked you to provide me with potential falsifications?:

quote:

---

Potential falsification is still non-existent here. The initial argument is that you say that producing a universe ex nihilo void of supernatural incorporation is entirely feasible because the universe 'doesn't need a cause' or some such. Claiming it as scientifically applicable requires potential falsification for this theory.

---

"And of course, you are the final authority on this. Lets have some substance. I should take your word for it?"
--Is that all you can say? Question if I am the final authority on it? Why don't you just tell me why my statement is ridiculous or some-such rather than this type of response."Once you figure out what I am talking about, get back to me. "
--Lets flee from this irelevant quibble. You again, have indicated that you, nor cosmologists have the answer to your problem."Certainly you believe this."
--Its only obvious. Lets get to something productive -->"All very interesting, but entirely your construct not mine. This is where we are missing each other. I didn't make any argument about something coming from nothing. I made the argument that causality breaks down at a singularity such as the BB and so an ARGUMENT BASED ON CAUSALITY isn't applicable. "
--Actually this is your construct, in post #2:

quote:

---

I think what you are really asking is what caused the BB, and the honest answer is that nobody knows. The idea of causality doesn't even apply as space and time did not exist prior to the BB. No space, no time == no causality.

​

The physics we understand do not work at a singularity. At a singularity the equations get filled with zeros and infinity and things get very weird. Think of it as trying to do what your math teachers tell you not to do-- divide by zero.

​

The most intriguing idea for me at the moment is the observable phenomena of zero point energy. Basically, sub-atomic particles pop into and out-off existence and do so quite regularly. One such quantum fluctuation could have been our start.

---

--I am arguing that your notion of no causality is sophistry. you've attempted to solve your problem of creation ex nihilo by a quantum fluctuation here. Of course, quantum fluctuations do not take place outside of space. You attempted to continue rambling off properties of singularities, but do not address the initial creation of space-time because you continued with the underlying premise that space-time has already been created. Either that or you have ignored its potential to modify your argumental position completely."Interesting, but still not the argument I made. See how easy this would have been if you had just explained yourself? I foolishly assumed you were criticising an argument that I had made. Go figure."
--You must be mistaken, I'm sure, see above and feel free to attempt reply to the comment:

quote:

---

Also notice, effect does not make sense either. Pertaining to space=-time, 0=0, no matter what you do, 0 is not going to bring anything into existence, let alone space-time. What you want to get is space-time.

---

--Seeing this is a continued reiteration, I'll reiterate mine as well:

quote:

---

It is fully sensible, again the singularity and its dimensional properties and its unconformity with classical physics is irrelevant, let us move from this.

---

quote:

---

That's right! The reason for that is because in a singularity space as well as time still exist, but you don't have the luxury of working with them, because you have zero!

---

"Ok. Now that I understand what you are arguing against, it is making sense. Though it is funny that you are arguing against an argument I didn't make."
--Haha, yeah, thats a good one. But no, seriously.. "The fact is you have zero to work with""How would you get anything with causality? Seems like you have a better chance getting something from nothing without causality than with it."
--I think you just side-stepped a mile. You've forgotten another possibility than the two you've listed. Maybe its just that, if you don't have causality, you don't get anything. Just thought I'd suggest that since it never seemed to cross your mind, eh?"Good thing this doesn't have anything to do with the argument I actually made though, which, in review, was that an argument based on causality is meaningless under circumstances where causality-- predictablility if you will-- breaks down."
--Your a funny guy, I've heard of people making strawman arguments of other's incite, but how often do you make a strawman of your own initial argumentation.------------------[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 11-22-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
What I mean is that this is what our discussion is revolving around.

---

We don't have a conversation, TC. You made a comment about something you think I said during another conversation.

quote:

---

So why didn't you respond to the segment where I asked you to provide me with potential falsifications?

---

All due respect, but, are you an idiot? You are asking, and have been for several posts, to provide you with 'falsification' for an argument you made up and attributed to me.

quote:

---

Why don't you just tell me why my statement is ridiculous or some-such rather than this type of response.

---

Well, dear TC, if you can pontificate I can bitch about it.

quote:

---

Actually this is your construct, in post #2:

---

quote:

---

I am arguing that your notion of no causality is sophistry.

---

How could you have missed the last hundred years of physics and cosmology?How can you repeat this over and over after when it takes virtually no effort to verify the fundametal contention that causality breaks down at or near a singularity. This is absurd. I have even posted references for you which flat out state that very thing.

quote:

---

you've attempted to solve your problem of creation ex nihilo by a quantum fluctuation here.

---

I haven't attempted to solve any such problem. This is your overactive imagination. I have though about the subject and posted one of those thoughts but I damn sure have not tried to solve any creatio ex nihilo problem. I don't need to attempt such a thing to support the argument I was in fact making.

quote:

---

You attempted to continue rambling off properties of singularities, but do not address the initial creation of space-time because you continued with the underlying premise that space-time has already been created. Either that or you have ignored its potential to modify your argumental position completely.

---

Have you noticed yet that I wasn't trying to address the initial creation of spacetime? And I only figured out last post that this is what you were talking about.

quote:

---

I think you just side-stepped a mile.

---

Nope. I was always here.

quote:

---

You've forgotten another possibility than the two you've listed. Maybe its just that, if you don't have causality, you don't get anything. Just thought I'd suggest that since it never seemed to cross your mind, eh?

---

If I had been discussion the topic you think I was discussing perhaps I would have mentioned it. But since I was talking about something quite different it really doesn't matter. Since, as actually happened, I was talking about the validity of applying an argument based upon causality to a time and place where PREDICTABILITY BREAKS DOWN.

quote:

---

Your a funny guy, I've heard of people making strawman arguments of other's incite, but how often do you make a strawman of your own initial argumentation.

---

What can I say? You are completely and hopelessly lost and are now pretentious enough to tell me what my argument was about. LOL.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:

​

How can you repeat this over and over after when it takes virtually no effort to verify the fundametal contention that causality breaks down at or near a singularity. This is absurd. I have even posted references for you which flat out state that very thing.

---

i'm not sure, this is a hard discussion to follow, but i *think* tc is asking you if what you say above (including any references you posted) is or has been shown to be falsifiable, and if so how so... but i could be *way* off

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven:
i'm not sure, this is a hard discussion to follow, but i *think* tc is asking you if what you say above (including any references you posted) is or has been shown to be falsifiable, and if so how so... but i could be *way* off

---

Let me summarize.TC, as I understand it now and after much effort, is asking me to show falsifiability for the contention that the universe came from nothing at all. This is the 0=0=0=0=0 that keeps popping up. I can't. No one can at the moment. There are theories out there, one of which I mentioned in passing, and there are people working on the problem.What is driving me nuts is that I don't need to go all the way back to nothing at all, if ever such was. I only need to go back to a singularity for my argument to work. At or near a singularity, causality-- predictability-- breaks down. This is all I need. Even TC has admitted that, but continues with his hard-headed insistence that I defend a claim I didn't make. He read between the lines, and read wrong.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

"Have you noticed yet that I wasn't trying to address the initial creation of spacetime? And I only figured out last post that this is what you were talking about."
--Please John, this is a petty sidestep. I am going to quote you verbatim and you tell me that you didn't actually say the things you said. Did you think I wasn't following the thread before I joined in?:

quote:

---

I think what you are really asking is what caused the BB, and the honest answer is that nobody knows. The idea of causality doesn't even apply as space and time did not exist prior to the BB. No space, no time == no causality.

​

The physics we understand do not work at a singularity. At a singularity the equations get filled with zeros and infinity and things get very weird. Think of it as trying to do what your math teachers tell you not to do-- divide by zero.

​

The most intriguing idea for me at the moment is the observable phenomena of zero point energy. Basically, sub-atomic particles pop into and out-off existence and do so quite regularly. One such quantum fluctuation could have been our start.

---

--Here you are talking about no causality prior the Big Bang event. The Big bang event implies the development of space-time and everything in it. Speaking in the past tense in reference to the Big Bang, is speaking about a time when there space-time does not exist thus everything in it as well.--Again you elaborate:

quote:

---

Causality is tied to that space and time. Prior to the BB.... well, there was no prior because there was no space and no time. You cannot have a cause when there was no preceeding moment. Got it?

---

--Here you also are again iterating the argument that since you have no existence there is no reason to say that you need a cause. However my argument is that whether you have cause or not, your not going to ever go from prior the BB to the BB, but your only going to go from zero to zero.--Further support for the fact that this is what your arguing, ie, creation ex nihilo: [Quote] Its more like all of our notions about causality are tied to the world around us-- to spacetime. Things happen sequentially. Things move through space. [/i]Remove time and space and try to imagine causality.[/i] It is like trying to define Cartesian coordinates without the Cartesian or the coordinates. [/Quote]--Remove time and space and you don't even have a singularity, let alone a BB one, you don't have a Big Bang with no space, and no time.

quote:

---

This is where what I said earlier has relevance. Cause and effect exist in the space-time we inhabit. However, at the extremes -- black holes and singularities-- all the rules change. In other words, in the case of the universe itself, the question simply doesn't make sense.

---

--Here you are attempting to contrast Frozen stars in their singularity properties and the question of whether the BB had to have a cause. But here you are following the false notion that singularities imply a halt in existence, an essence of zero. This is not true, thus does not and has not supported your argument.And the Creme de la creme, your first post to me:

quote:

---

Nope, it is a simple reference to the fact that at a singularity what we call causality breaks down-- as per most theories. There isn't much to it really. At the BB singularity, prior to space-time, causality simply doesn't apply.

---

--A singularity does not imply the non-existence of space-time, which you assume here. You indicate this by say here that the BB singularity existed prior to space-time, when a singularity requires space-time. I'm not an idiot, you are by deductive reasoning, arguing creation ex nihilo, you have a problem, and have admitted the problem is not solved while still parroting that it has been solved by hundreds of years of cosmological study.--This is getting tedious, why can't you just admit that you don't have an answer?-------------------

"What is driving me nuts is that I don't need to go all the way back to nothing at all, if ever such was. I only need to go back to a singularity for my argument to work. At or near a singularity, causality-- predictability-- breaks down. This is all I need. Even TC has admitted that, but continues with his hard-headed insistence that I defend a claim I didn't make. He read between the lines, and read wrong. "
--False, wrong, incorrect, and, erroneous. You do need to go back to nothing at all. You are arguing creation ex nihilo, or maybe its creation from zero? Either way its completely synonymous no matter the semantic jargon. In order for this to be true:

quote:

---

Nope, it is a simple reference to the fact that at a singularity what we call causality breaks down-- as per most theories. There isn't much to it really. At the BB singularity, prior to space-time, causality simply doesn't apply.

---

--You need to begin with absolutely nothing, no space-time [as you say in your quote] and thus nothing within it. Even if you were arguing how the Big Bang occurred after the singularity came into existence, its a pointless argument, this has already been settled and agreed with. But you don't have space time to work with!------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
Please John, this is a petty sidestep.

---

Petty is your psychotic insistence on telling me what I was arguing.

quote:

---

John:
I think what you are really asking is what caused the BB, and the honest answer is that nobody knows.

---

Wow. Gee whiz. I just said that noboby knows. This includes me. And you are using this to claim that I have a theory of no causality? Its absurd, TC.

quote:

---

The idea of causality doesn't even apply as space and time did not exist prior to the BB. No space, no time == no causality.

---

And where do you see me arguing that something came from nothing? All I said was that SPACE and TIME did not exist,and that causality is tied to the two. What I did not claim is that nothing existed. Maybe there is something else that did exist, maybe not. I didn't say. I don't really know. I do know there are theories which try to explain what was prior to the BB.

quote:

---

John:
The physics we understand do not work at a singularity.

---

Do you dispute this?

quote:

---

John:
At a singularity the equations get filled with zeros and infinity and things get very weird.

---

Do you dispute this?

quote:

---

John:
The most intriguing idea for me at the moment is the observable phenomena of zero point energy. Basically, sub-atomic particles pop into and out-off existence and do so quite regularly. One such quantum fluctuation could have been our start.

---

This would be the sideline speculation, as implied in the first damn sentence.

quote:

---

Here you are talking about no causality prior the Big Bang event.

---

Yup. What I am not talking about is the existence or non-existence of pre-BB stuff.

quote:

---

The Big bang event implies the development of space-time and everything in it.

---

Damn sure does. But not necessarily the generation of space-time from nothing. This is a jump you've made and continually attribute it to me.

quote:

---

Speaking in the past tense in reference to the Big Bang, is speaking about a time when there space-time does not exist thus everything in it as well.

---

No argument. But still not what you insist it is-- a statement of something from nothing. You are right. I'd like to think that everything came from nothing. It is a funny idea. I like the irony, but that isn't what I argued. [Quote]John:
Causality is tied to that space and time. Prior to the BB.... well, there was no prior because there was no space and no time. You cannot have a cause when there was no preceeding moment. Got it?
TC:
Here you also are again iterating the argument that since you have no existence[/b][/quote]Wrong again. ... since there is no space and time speaking of causality makes no sense. You don't see me using the term 'existence' do you? There is a reason for that.

quote:

---

TC:
However my argument is that whether you have cause or not, your not going to ever go from prior the BB to the BB, but your only going to go from zero to zero.

---

There is of course, 0 = 1 + -1. But that would just further confuse you, and it isn't relevant to the points you have criticised. [Quote]John:
[b]Its more like all of our notions about causality are tied to the world around us-- to spacetime. Things happen sequentially. Things move through space. [/i]Remove time and space and try to imagine causality.[/i] It is like trying to define Cartesian coordinates without the Cartesian or the coordinates.[/b][/quote]Where do you get something from nothing ut of this?

quote:

---

Remove time and space and you don't even have a singularity, let alone a BB one, you don't have a Big Bang with no space, and no time.

---

Have you missed the part about certain values going to zero at a singularity? To my way of thinking, this is functionally no space-time.

quote:

---

Here you are attempting to contrast Frozen stars in their singularity properties and the question of whether the BB had to have a cause.

---

I am not contrasting anything and I am not talking about whether the BB had a cause but about whether it is valid to apply an argument requiring causality to a time prior to the breakdown of predictability.

quote:

---

But here you are following the false notion that singularities imply a halt in existence, an essence of zero.

---

Wrong again. But PREDICTABILITY breaks down. This is entirely the point.

quote:

---

This is not true, thus does not and has not supported your argument.

---

irrelevant, since I am still talking about the breakdown of predictability.

quote:

---

And the Creme de la creme, your first post to me:
Nope, it is a simple reference to the fact that at a singularity what we call causality breaks down-- as per most theories. There isn't much to it really. At the BB singularity, prior to space-time, causality simply doesn't apply.

---

Do you maintain that PREDICTABILITY does not break down at a singularity? Since this is explicitly what I said, I assume that this is what you dispute. I have provided references to back up my claim.

quote:

---

A singularity does not imply the non-existence of space-time, which you assume here.

---

It doesn't matter, TC. I would argue the point, but it doesn't matter to the debate.

quote:

---

You indicate this by say here that the BB singularity existed prior to space-time, when a singularity requires space-time.

---

Prior to space-time as we know it. Prior to predictability. Besides which, precisely what is spacetime when the values go to zero?

quote:

---

I'm not an idiot

---

hmmmm..... very questionable indeed.

quote:

---

you are by deductive reasoning, arguing creation ex nihilo

---

This is just laughable.

quote:

---

you have a problem

---

I have many, but not the ones you point out. That should be obvious by now.

quote:

---

and have admitted the problem is not solved while still parroting that it has been solved by hundreds of years of cosmological study.

---

I admit the problem of the origin of the unierse is not solved. I did not imply that it had been solved but that you missed large parts of the last hundred years of physics and cosmology, which I still maintain.

quote:

---

This is getting tedious, why can't you just admit that you don't have an answer?

---

I admit that I cannot explain creatio ex nihilo. I also admit that I am not sure that such is even the case. But it has nothing to do with the validity of my claim that one cannot apply an argument based upon causality to a point in time past which predictability breaks down.Yes, it is getting tedious. Why not admit you were mistaken in your interpretations of my posts?------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

​

--Here you are talking about no causality prior the Big Bang event. The Big bang event implies the development of space-time and everything in it. Speaking in the past tense in reference to the Big Bang, is speaking about a time when there space-time does not exist thus everything in it as well.

---

ok, i think i finally see what he's saying, john... to say that the bb can't have a cause means it's not contingent... if it isn't contingent, it's either necessary or impossible... it isn't impossible, therefore it must be necessary...see, for the universe in which we live to be in motion, it had to exist in some form prior to that motion... that form would have to be absolutely static, absolutely timeless (else there'd be motion)... since we're postulating bb as that first motion event, and since you're saying it wasn't contingent (had no cause), this static state had to always existas well as the universe having to be absolutely static and timeless prior to bb there had to be a time logically prior to that first event for it to have always existed...but by saying the universe is necessary, it must occur... it couldn't *not* occur else it wasn't necessary.. and since it wasn't contingent, it *would* occur.. also, if it was necessary there would be no need for a time logically prior to it...but therein lies the problem... to be necessary, all conditions necessary for the first event had to be present.. since the event would have occurred without a point logically prior to it (for there would be no point logically prior such that the conditions for the first event were not present) there was never a point when the universe wouldn't exist...think about it a moment... if bb was necessary, all conditions would be present, no logically prior moment would be necessary, and there would never be a moment that first event *couldn't* have occurred... it would be eternal in that caseso i think tc is saying that given the point you're making, that the universe isn't contingent (it's uncaused), it must be eternal.. if eternal, if it's always existed, we'd never be here and now... see?

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
False, wrong, incorrect, and, erroneous. You do need to go back to nothing at all.

---

I damn sure don't. I only need to go back to the moment predictability breaks down in order to invalidate an argument that depends upon predictability and which is applied to a 'time' prior to such breakdown of predictability. It isn't that complicated.

quote:

---

You are arguing creation ex nihilo, or maybe its creation from zero?

---

No, I am not. I am arguing that it isn't valid to apply causilty to a time prior to predictability.

quote:

---

You need to begin with absolutely nothing, no space-time [as you say in your quote] and thus nothing within it.

---

No I do not, because I am not building a cosmology, I am criticising an argument.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com