Conservation of energy

[The Tanager]

I don't know if this should go here, because I'm not making a religious point off of this here, but it could possibly clear up some confusion in another thread.

Which of these would you say is the law of conservation of energy? Or how would you tighten the law up more?

(1) Matter/energy/mass are eternal

(2) In a closed system, the total amount of mass/energy/matter is constant or conserved. That the system does not gain or lose any energy when transformations take place within it.

[William]

[Replying to post 20 by Danmark]

This is the essence of where you are wrong, confusing logic with evidence.

Not at all. I asked a question of you related to your call for a special kind of evidence.

There is no evidence of a creative being having always existed.

It is logically plausible in relation to philosophy. That has been explained often enough.

Even theologians* disagree with the anthropomorphic notion that God is a mere being.

GOD would of course have to BE, and know itself as BEING. Otherwise thinking that the universe was created by a non-being - this cannot be an act of willful creation but accidental. As such, these would be atheists calling themselves 'theologians'.

If it is more about GOD cannot be a humanoid being sitting on a throne (as 'he' is oft portrayed,) I definitely agree with that.

But what has that got to do with the question I asked of you?

And that brings up the problem with your request for persuasive evidence of a 'God' as a first and eternal, creative being:

Ah...now perhaps we get to the meat...

Define 'God.' Whose 'God?'

In this case GOD has already been defined as the First Source - the non-created. There are plenty of recent threads which have already defined It as such.

But what of the definition of GOD in relation to my question put to you? If you claim that evidence needs to be produced which signifies a GODs existence, and a GOD has been defined at least as 'a being whom created this universe' that should be enough definition for you to be able to define what kind of special evidence you require that would be acceptable to you as evidence GOD exists.

There are thousands of different notions of God. Those from religious scripture all seem hopelessly childish, anthropomorphic and ridiculous, to me, but go ahead, pick one or come up with your own definition and I'll reply.

Well there is the one which created this universe. I call that one 'The Universal Entity'. Or if you prefer, we can focus specifically on the Earth Entity - the planet earths creative consciousness which is an aspect of the consciousness of the UE.

For a more comprehensive definition you can read on the subject of the EE in my Members Notes;

♦ The Earth Entity

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 13 by Clownboat]

I said pm me.

I don't see why I should.
Be well.

Next..

Your challenge has been accepted.
Please see post 19 from Danmark.

Try to do more than shake your head if at all possible.

[Inigo Montoya]

To William and ForTheKingdom-


The two of you are contending that the big bang theory models the universe "beginning to exist."


Are you understanding that to mean the universe just appeared?

Or are you understanding that to mean the inflation event was the catalyst for spacetime and thus marks the furthest rearward boundary we can coherently extrapolate to?


I get the impression you both take the first to be what's being conveyed.

[William]

[Replying to post 23 by Inigo Montoya]

contending that the big bang theory models the universe "beginning to exist."

That is generically understood to be the moment the universe began, yes.

Are you understanding that to mean the universe just appeared?

What? You mean just magically appeared out of nowhere? My posts on this subject clearly show I am against such magical thinking!

Or are you understanding that to mean the inflation event was the catalyst for spacetime and thus marks the furthest rearward boundary we can coherently extrapolate to?

Coherently as far as the tools of science go. I have also mentioned this oft enough that it cannot be missed if indeed the reader bothers to read what I have said on the matter.

I get the impression you take the first to be what's being conveyed.

Speaking for myself, if you get that impression I can assume that you skimmed over what I have written about this.

[Inigo Montoya]

[Replying to post 24 by William]

I would disagree your posts show a tendency removed from magical thinking. That's neither here nor there, though.

Can you clarify in a sentence or two, without referencing links to your mountain of member notes, what you take "begins to exist" as meaning?

You acknowledge it didn't just appear, yet also contend it didn't always exist. So what is your interpretation of the science you reference that makes sense of both ideas?

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 7 by Kenisaw]

I promised a further explanation on philosophy, and here it is. The problem with eternal anything (universes or gods) is a basic one. If something exists eternally, then we can never reach the point in that existence where this universe appears. Be it a god or a constant universe, it would take an eternity before you reach the point where this universe appears. There is no middle to infinity Kingdom, and therefore no way to get to a finite universe appearing. It's false logic.

I agree with you that it is illogical for this universe to have eternally existed because of its nature. It begins and ends If it somehow then began at the end of one cycle such as with the theory of expansion and contraction where did the original beginning of a cycle happen?
To say that it simply always happened makes no sense because of the fact that in this, there is always a 'beginning' and an 'end'

However it appears you are conflating that idea with one of a GOD always having existed. It would be great if you could expand on you reasoning above in relation to this.

Not sure where you need me to expound. The claim that anything has always existed, and then claim that in the middle of that infinite existence X happened, is illogical. There is no middle to infinity. If the universe has always existed, we could never reach this point in it's existence where the current iteration exists. If gods have always existed, we could never reach the point in their existence where it got around to creating the universe. Either claim is nonsensical.

Your thought are this are of interest to me.

[Kenisaw]

Hmm, my answer from the other day disappeared. So I will try again:

Accuracy matters in a discussion such as this, and your statements are not accurate.

LOL.

I'm glad to see you can laugh at your errors. It's refreshing that someone isn't afraid to do that at this website. Well done you.

You do not know if energy and mass are eternal, or not.

I do.

No you don't. You don't have the first clue, and neither does anyone else. We are all lacking knowledge about this, and any claim one way or another about the eternal nature of mass and energy is hypothetical.

Our current understanding of things takes us back to the beginning of THiS universe, and this universe only. Everything before that is hypothetical, even though some of those hypothesis are supported mathematically. Matter and energy may have a beginning, and they may not. It's one of the questions that awaits an answer.

Infinite duration/regression is impossible. An infinite amount of events in time is...impossible. Those are the facts.

So, regardless of how many universes you think there are, or how many times or how LONG you'd like to believe that matter/energy was transforming..the point is simple; it couldn't have been transforming forever. That is the inescapable point.

Now, if it couldn't have been transforming forever, then it couldn't have EXISTED forever...thus, an external, timeless cause is needed. Thus...Gen 1:1..."In the beginning.."

What you fail to grasp is that infinite regression is a spacetime phenomena. It involves an entropic reality. If there was no arrow of time and no entropy before this universe, there is no reason to think that things followed a causal relationship.

Like I've written multiple times now, we don't know what came before this universe, and we don't know what the rules were pre-universe. We can't claim infinite regression because we don't know if cause and effect was possible pre-universe. You assume it was, and you have no way of knowing that.

From a philosophical view, I actually agree with you that it doesn't make sense (to me) that matter and energy are eternal. It doesn't make sense, from a philosophical view, that anything is eternal for that matter. But I will delve into that more below...

It doesn't make sense because it is impossible.

It doesn't make sense in this universe. This universe has not always existed. What the rules were before this universe is the question, and we don't have enough knowledge to state that accurately.

You are correct that the universe is a closed system. You are correct that this universe has entropy, and therefore the amount of usable energy in it will eventually reach zero. I agree that this implies that this universe cannot be eternal or it would already be at maximum entropy. Your statements here are clear and concise and accurate.

Those props are over due.

I try to give credit when credit is due.

The problem we have still is similar to the previous paragraph, in that we don't know what was around before this universe.

You people just don't get it, do you? SMH.

There's nothing to get. We can't "get" something that is devoid of information, and what was before the universe is information we don't have.

Entropy is time related. In other words, without an arrow of time, entropy isn't an issue because it would be possible to move back and forth between two states with no entropy penalty in either direction. As an example, a deck of cards thrown into the air would require the exact same amount of energy to make them into an organized deck again.

It may be the same amount of energy, but it won't be the same exact pattern, would it?

Very good question. It could be the exact same pattern. There's nothing limiting it to bounce back and forth between two particular patterns over and over. It could also change into any number of different patterns and never repeat. It could stay the same and not do anything. There's no limit to any of those things happening.

In our entropic universe that isn't true, but we can't say it isn't possible outside this universe.

The same thing would apply. If you throw a deck of cards into the air, the cards aren't likely to land in the form of a card-house...not in this universe, or any universe. Nature doesn't operate like that. Nature doesn't care about what pattern they fall in...according to nature, they will fall how they fall.

It may happen exactly as you say, but we can't say for sure. We only know about this universe, so describing things outside that is a matter of speculation.

Before time began, the singularity didn't have entropy constrains.

You say that as if the singularity was just sitting there, waiting to expand. With the beginning of the creation was the beginning of the expansion...simultaneously.

Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. Singularity is just science speak for "unknown". Despite the thought that there was this very dense point packed with all the matter and energy in the universe, that shouldn't be considered as absolutely true. That hypothesis comes from reversing the expanding universe back into it's starting point, but there is no guarantee that the singularity actually was this incredibly dense point. Once again we are limited in our knowledge by the lack of evidence for what was before the Big Bang.

If a previous universe collapsed to the point where spacetime no longer existed, everything in the subsequent singularity could move to a low entropy state with no penalty. Then our universe could have started from a low entropy state singularity.

Makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. So, because the universe "collapses to a point where spacetime no longer exists, this implies a singularity could move to a low entropy state".

Non sequitur.

If there is no spacetime, there is no reason that entropy could not flow in the opposite direction. A singularity devoid of time could be devoid of an arrow of entropy too.

Since there was no time, there also isn't a cause effect relationship to things either. Which means a universe could potentially start without a cause.

Impossible. What would cause it to "start"? It would just start for absolutely no reason whatsoever? Illogical.

Don't know what would cause it to start, or that anything caused it to start. That's the problem with trying to figure something before the Big Bang that might have had different rules in effect.

The problem here is that we know a lot of things, but it pales in comparison to what we don't know. We don't know what preceded this universe, we don't know why there is an arrow time, we don't know why there is entropy, we don't know why our universe started out with low entropy. We can't assume, based on what we DO know, what is the explanation is for the things we DON'T know.

You speak as if there are a million different options, when in fact there are only two.

1. Either the universe (all physical reality, regardless of location) is past eternal
2. The universe is finite and had a beginning

Those are the only two games in town..and if one is negated, the other one wins by default (law of excluded middle). No middle ground.

So, both can't be true, and both can't be false. Therefore, only one can be true (necessarily true), and the other one false (necessarily false).

And I argue that #1 is necessarily false...and I can prove it..and I've been proving it.[/quote]

That's fine that you argue that #1 is false. Maybe it is. That's not where I have a problem with your statements. It's reaching the "gods did it" part that is illogical.

You argue against eternal universes, and then use an eternal creator being as your argument. The inherent contradiction there is rather obvious.

As explained above, we can't say this universe needed a cause, because we don't know if it is eternal or not, and we don't know the conditions that preceded this universe. That's the problem with The Kalam Argumen - it assumes things that's cannot be considered true.

The universe began to exist, Kenisaw (again, you've admitted the consensus). And everything that begins to exist has a cause.

Any objection to this deduction? Seems simple.

I have concluded that the universe began to exist, and I have no problem admitting it. What I haven't been able to conclude is what came before this universe (if anything), if this universe is from a string of past universes, and all the other stuff I've already mentioned in this post. Without data and evidence, I can't possibly reach conclusions about those other things. It's all conjecture at that point.

I promised a further explanation on philosophy, and here it is. The problem with eternal anything (universes or gods) is a basic one. If something exists eternally, then we can never reach the point in that existence where this universe appears.

We could, if this "something" has existed eternally outside of time, which the universe cannot be said to have done.

You've made another statement that you cannot verify. You can't say if previous universes had time in them or not. You are extrapolating the properties of this universe onto other things, without the ability to validate the truth of your claim.

Beyond that, I've never said anything about time, only about existence. Nothing that infinitely exists can reach the middle of it's existence. This seems an obvious statement to me.

Be it a god or a constant universe, it would take an eternity before you reach the point where this universe appears. There is no middle to infinity Kingdom, and therefore no way to get to a finite universe appearing. It's false logic.

Yet, we've arrived at this "point" in time somehow, didn't we? That wouldn't be the case if the universe was past eternal.

If time was a component of past universes. We have no idea if that is true though, now do we?

[William]

[Replying to post 26 by Kenisaw]

Not sure where you need me to expound.

So it appears...

The claim that anything has always existed, and then claim that in the middle of that infinite existence X happened, is illogical.

Why so? That is what you need to expound upon.

There is no middle to infinity.

So what?

If the universe has always existed, we could never reach this point in it's existence where the current iteration exists.

Correct. That is why we can say that the universe has not always existed.

If gods have always existed, we could never reach the point in their existence where it got around to creating the universe. Either claim is nonsensical.

This is where I am saying you appear to be conflating that which has been created with that which has not.

A creator entity who has never had a beginning can indeed create at any point in Its existence. The potential to create this universe has always existed. The actuality comes into play when the universe had been set into motion at its beginning - the potential was thus actualized.

[William]

[Replying to post 25 by Inigo Montoya]

Can you clarify in a sentence or two, without referencing links to your mountain of member notes, what you take "begins to exist" as meaning?

No I cannot. I provide links to the relevant arguments at the end of this post.
If you find you cannot be bothered checking them out then that is your call.

You acknowledge it didn't just appear, yet also contend it didn't always exist. So what is your interpretation of the science you reference that makes sense of both ideas?

My interpretation is that the universe had to be created by some intelligent entity able to do so. The tools of science I referenced is simply that which is generically known so far by human beings using said tools of science to evaluate our situation and explain it in scientific terms.
My interpretation of the science is evaluated using philosophical terms.

♦Uncaused[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]

[Inigo Montoya]

[Replying to post 25 by Inigo Montoya]

Can you clarify in a sentence or two, without referencing links to your mountain of member notes, what you take "begins to exist" as meaning?

No I cannot. I provide links to the relevant arguments at the end of this post.
If you find you cannot be bothered checking them out then that is your call.

You acknowledge it didn't just appear, yet also contend it didn't always exist. So what is your interpretation of the science you reference that makes sense of both ideas?

My interpretation is that the universe had to be created by some intelligent entity able to do so. The tools of science I referenced is simply that which is generically known so far by human beings using said tools of science to evaluate our situation and explain it in scientific terms.
My interpretation of the science is evaluated using philosophical terms.

♦Uncaused[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]

That's too good. No, he won't answer a simple question. Instead he'll supply a dozen links to who? A cosmologist? A physicist? No... To himself!

I love it. I've never seen anyone support their own claims by referencing more of their own claims, William. You're a much needed reminder of why I take such long absences from the site.

I have zero interest in your speculation. You're in a science subforum. I'm interested in what you can demonstrate. If the best you can do is link people to unfounded conjecture, largely philosophical woo-woo, authored by yourself, well then so be it.

First source consciousness? Earth entities? Do you have any support from the scientific community that these are anything beyond your imagination's creations?

You deserve some credit for couching so much of your commentary with "if this is true, then..." or "my religion X...." But that qualification can precede any wild ass thing I feel like saying, too. If it's true I'm immortal, then I can live forever.