Age of Universe?

Do you think that the universe has always existed and is infinite, that it had a starting point and is limited, or neither?

At least this iteration had a starting point, the Big Bang being a well documented theory. This isn't to say that something may or may not have spawned it.

ditto

Aaron wrote:

Do you think that the universe has always existed and is infinite that it had a starting point and is limited, or neither?

1. How can something always exist? This is an unverifiable statement that parallels to god's existence. It goes unsupported either way.

2. If there is a starting point, then this leads to two conclusions.
a. The universe was a cause of itself
b. There is a transmaterial mover.

'A' is a self contradiction.
'B' implies an unmoved mover.

If 'B' is true, then we can make some empirical observations about this transmaterial mover.

1. It is simple, since complexity sprouts from simplicity.
2. Therefore, it is probably a-intelligent (i.e. like gravity is a-moral and a-intelligent)
3. Does not intervene

It still begs the question of where the parametric values of the physical laws came from. These laws are sensitive and conducive to life.

According to the multiverse theory, different physical laws and geometry could apply, rendering life completely impossible. Then again, we suffer from infinite regression.

My final synopsis is that the universe is this big

Aaron wrote:

Do you think that the universe has always existed and is infinite, that it had a starting point and is limited, or neither?

That depends on how you define time. If you define it as material causality then no the evidence available to me (basically Olber's paradox) suggests the universe had a definite beginning.

But if you define it idealistically as logical contingency then yes in a way you could say the universe has always existed. In this model if you could step out of the universe and look back on it I think it would look something like a light cone rippled with probability waves and fuzzy spots that mark great clouds of uncertainty with the narrow 'end' being the foundational laws of "physics" and the wide 'end' being where entropy no longer allows the exchange of energy necessary for an event to occur.

This has several advantages. The main one being it completely avoids the question, "What happened before the 'big bang'?" As you know this is a meaningless question because if time began with the big bang there could be no before the big bang.

From our point of view 'before' and 'after' are illusions caused by our being in the world and thus seeing it in cross section (the 'now'). For just as you can not reduce a three dimensional globe to a two dimensional map without distortion neither can you reduce the cosmos to three spatial and one temporal dimension without distortion.

In that case the world could have a sort of eternal existence but only as a concept similar to the way the number 'two' or a 'triangle' has an eternal existence. But this does not negate indeterminism.

There may be an infinite number of types of universes but the conservation laws just won't permit every variation of a type to be realized. Think of it like this; there are thirty-six possible outcomes when tossing a pair of dice but only one can actually come up. Likewise there are an infinite number of ways our universe could evolve but only one way it will evolve. So from the point of view of someone outside the universe it would appear to be an instantaneous conception but to us it seems played out because we see the steps in logic (which we percieve as 'causes') that led to its final configuration..

Now if you understand all that please explain it to me the voice in my head that tells me what to write just hopped a bus to Cincinatti!

stretmediq wrote:

Now if you understand all that please explain it to me the voice in my head that tells me what to write just hopped a bus to Cincinatti!

I've been there myself.

gettin in tune is one of my fav who songs!!


i think the universe is 37 years old. it's the nothing that goes on forever, until that fact suddenly dawns upon it and it stops into existence...next thing you know a baby is being born to explain why this is all happening

Actually, the Universe is a little over 60 years old. It did not exist (for me) before January 16, 1947.

Of course, in order for me to be born, the Big Bang had to have occurred approximately 9 months earlier.

Big Bang is just one of many things it's called

stretmediq wrote:

That depends on how you define time.

A subjective human cannot define time.

Quote :

If you define it as material causality then no the evidence available to me (basically Olber's paradox) suggests the universe had a definite beginning.

Yes! A self-definition of time goes unsupported.

Quote :

But if you define it idealistically as logical contingency then yes in a way you could say the universe has always existed.

We cannot define time idealistically.

Quote :

In this model if you could step out of the universe and look back on it I think it would look something like a light cone rippled with probability waves and fuzzy spots that mark great clouds of uncertainty with the narrow 'end' being the foundational laws of "physics" and the wide 'end' being where entropy no longer allows the exchange of energy necessary for an event to occur.

Your model leaves out causality. Your model is a description, but not a cause.

Quote :

This has several advantages. The main one being it completely avoids the question, "What happened before the 'big bang'?" As you know this is a meaningless question because if time began with the big bang there could be no before the big bang.

This is false. A lack of understanding does not equate truth. Why can't something exist before the universe? It goes back to causality and Aristotelean logic; an unmoved mover.

Quote :

From our point of view 'before' and 'after' are illusions caused by our being in the world and thus seeing it in cross section (the 'now').

Are you busting Kant on me?

Quote :

For just as you can not reduce a three dimensional globe to a two dimensional map without distortion neither can you reduce the cosmos to three spatial and one temporal dimension without distortion.

Your statement is based on an anthropocentric view....and goes unsupported.

Quote :

In that case the world could have a sort of eternal existence but only as a concept similar to the way the number 'two' or a 'triangle' has an eternal existence. But this does not negate indeterminism.

NO! A triangle is not the same everywhere.

An external existence supports atheism and an exogenous force supports deism. Both beliefs are non-conquestional

Quote :

There may be an infinite number of types of universes but the conservation laws just won't permit every variation of a type to be realized.

OK, this is where you are losing me.

Quote :

Think of it like this; there are thirty-six possible outcomes when tossing a pair of dice but only one can actually come up. Likewise there are an infinite number of ways our universe could evolve but only one way it will evolve.

You are behaving by "self governing" logic, that you do not know where that "self government" came from. Why does this dice have 6 sides? It is very anthropocentric. It goes unsupported.

Quote :

So from the point of view of someone outside the universe it would appear to be an instantaneous conception but to us it seems played out because we see the steps in logic (which we percieve as 'causes') that led to its final configuration..

Your assumption goes unsupported.

Quote :

Now if you understand all that please explain it to me the voice in my head that tells me what to write just hopped a bus to Cincinatti!

Enjoy Cincinnati. I am rooting for the BoSox and Pats.

It must be a change from OK. Enjoy!

Gettin' In Tune wrote:

OK, this is where you are losing me.

Actually I think I lost you on the very first sentence. This was just a simple response to a question not a formal argument. If you want a formal argument check this link: http://www.positivedeism.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=2699

Yes G.I.T. We come in peace.

I argue for deism based on reason and nature. I cannot argue about the deist conception of god. That requires a breach of reality.

I can be wrong, but I have boiled it down to 3 possibilities about the universe

1. There was an exogenous force
2. There was an endogenous force
3. The universe always existed

I choose 1. I am trying to associate 2 and 3 with atheists. I am trying to build an argument for this.

I am a deist since I believe in exogeneity. I base my belief on empirics, science, intuition, and nature.

But I still believe the universe is the big It is infinite.

What's exogenous?
what's endogenous?

Helium wrote:

What's exogenous?
what's endogenous?

From The New Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

Exogenous: adj caused or produced by factors outside the organism or system.

Endogenous: adj caused or produced by factors inside the organism or system.

thanks!

Aaron wrote:

Do you think that the universe has always existed and is infinite, that it had a starting point and is limited, or neither?

I believe it's both. Time began at the big bang but from God's perspective it's always been there.

I believe that God is both all knowing and all thinking. What I mean by that is that God knows everything, doesn't learn anything new,knows all things at once, doesn't think anything new, and thinks everything all at once. He's in a state of timelessness. He's thinking about the big bang and all time after. All of time is eternally before him.

Imagine that you wrote a book that had the whole history of the Universe in it. The first page has the Big Bang in it and the last page has the heat death of the Universe in it. Now the Big Bang wouldn't be the creation of the book it would just be the first page. The whole book with all the pages that represent time would be the entire creation. Now imagine that you eternally had this book, new every word, and was thinking about every page all at once. This book is in your thoughts and your the author but time is something you created in your book. Your in a state of timelessness. You didn't write this book in the past. You eternally wrote it in an unchangeable state of timelessness. This is basically how I imagine God's perspective of time.

Schizophretard