Creation Ex Nihilo

Mac


I don't follow you, since nowhere I argued that the universe without a begin was "proven". And more important, I already claimed that that is not possible to prove.

The current settlement for the issue, at least in the field of science and physics, is that spacetime itself is unbounded and has no edges.

So, clearly the discussion we have here, won't provide proof for any of the sides, we are just explaining our position, and try to make some sense of the issue, and provide valid argumentation.

So, the only relavance of this debate then is if the arguments each side provides, make sense or not. I already explained two aspects of your arguments (your bad treatment of the infinite - as if it can be dealt with like a physical property - and your argument from "everything starts to begin, so also the universe starts to begin", which denies the other aspect of "begin")

For the sake of clearity in the discussion, I would like to propose to clearify our terminology. Firstly when dealing with the concept of infinity, and as applied to physical reality, we both agree that such does not exist: the infinite can not be counted or measured.

We can then choose either one of two:
Spacetime itself has a boundary, or not.

Apart from rejecting infinity as physical reality (which we agree on both) do you also reject the "no boundary" proposal?

Please clearify your position in regard to that.

neusdens,

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>Apart from rejecting infinity as physical reality (which we agree on both) do you also reject the "no boundary" proposal?</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Lets firt be sure we both accept our Websters definition of boundry, which in part states is "A limit beyond which something doesnot exist".

If that is your accepted meaning for a boundry I would argue that time is bounded at a point of enception but at this juncture has no absolute boundry in the future. But I would add that there are several theories which predict such a boundry and that time indeed is limited and shall cease to exist.

I am inclined to believe those versions rather than predicting an eternal future but both such views are supposition and unproveable.



"Imagination is more important than Knowledge" -- Albert Einstien

Ok, that is at least a clear answer.

So, in fact you reject the settlement on which majority of physicsts have come in agreement, which is the "no boundary" proposal.

How could any physical theory explain such out of the ordinary points in spacetime, since normally, one can go in space in 6 different directions, and at any time, there was a past time and a future time. That is how we normally reflect on spacetime.
You on the contrary assume that there are points in spacetime without a future or history. Points in which change occurs for no reason from changelesness, or change ceases to be, and becomes changelesness. All matter and energy suddenly appears from nothing, and then is turned back into nothing.

The claim is extraordinary in that it is already assumed that no physical phenomena or process can explain such behaviour. Since all physical phenomena take place in space and time, and not oustide of it. You assume therefore a supernatual or outside force to act, that can cause the coming into being of space, time and matter from literallly nothing.

The claim is absurd and can not be based on any physical principle or theory. It is strictly outside of what physical theory can ever establish as what can occur in physical reality. For any change to happen, it is already assumed that there is physical matter/energy in time and space. But your claim is that such need not be the case. It occurs strictly outside of any physical reality itself.

Strictly speaking, such phenomena have no determination, cause any determination would assume that there is something that can determinate the "process".
Yet, no physical phenomena have ever been found, without there being anything that could in principle determintae the process (even virtual particle phenomena).

So, I hold your claim for absurd, and none of your previous links to scientific texts, provide any real foundation for such an idea. The idea is just what it is: an idea, without the existence of ANY foundation (the idea itself already claims that no foundation in physical phenomena CAN be given).

Exraordinary claims however do require extraordinary proof, and of which up to today, none has been given.

None of your arguments require us to think or assume that such an extraordinary event could ever take place.

In other words: instead of a scientific idea, your idea is simply that of supernaturalism, and even when the idea of a "supernatural force" is not explicitly mentioned, there is nothing that can differentiate it from any other form of "supernaturalism". Ot is simply the centuries old idea of creation, which is a mythical idea, and has no place in scientific theory and practice.

Mac said:

I.e. all sorts of material existence forms like fields and vacuum or whatever is there and can there
be that has the properties of change and/or motion in space and time, and which can be verified
to exist in an objective way, does not qualify as "nothing".


Response.

How could you verify any property of change and/or motion of homogenous energy with a neutral charge? There would be no motion and no change. You could define no coordinate and no dynamic would be possible. Without any dynamic there would be no time. This is the simplest form of nothing that is possible through deduction and rationality. If you can define some process in which there can be further deduction, please let me know.

[Mac] "Lets firt be sure we both accept our Websters definition of boundry, which in part states is 'A limit beyond which something does not exist'."

Every real thing has this sort of boundary. Call this a Type A boundary. Other real things can exist outside of this boundary. Yawn.

I'd like to see each of you (or anyone else, for that matter) expound on the other type of boundary (Type , where there is a limit 'beyond which NO-thing exists'. Not even conceptual things ...

Or, maybe we need a Type C boundary. Type B boundaries can have conceptual "things" outside of them. Type C boundaries can't.

===

The word universe (as used here by most of us: 'ALL that exists') seems to preclude <b>by definition</b> the possibility of a Type C boundary. If anything exists on the other side of a candidate boundary, that boundary is automatically of Type A or B.

(Other definitions of universe are possible, but not desirable here. If you want to use one of them, please be explicit.)

Thanks,
LB