Why are we here?

Author: Fallaneze

Posts

Total: 95
#31
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@ebuc
I'm trying here ebuc let's just go point by point ok? Your first point was about eternity which humans can only hypothesize about not actually observe. I  reject this first premise on the grounds that it cannot be tested. 
#32
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@secularmerlin
I'm trying here ebuc let's just go point by point ok?
I replied by quoting you and addressing your comments with my comments.  are you on or off your medcations? Seriously SM, you really have some difficults on focus at whats in front of you in any deliberate way.

Your first point was about eternity which humans can only hypothesize about not actually observe. I  reject this first premise on the grounds that it cannot be tested. 
You can reject all you want, but untill you ready to rejecto the 1st law of thermodynamics then you truly rejecting eternity.  This old news that we have disscussed an I have been clear.  Your kind of muddled on this issue, and only can see part of all the parts.

ebuc..."We deduce eternity in similar ways that we deduce infinity. Both are based on observations and human discovery of cosmic laws/principles"...

Energy { physical } cannot be created nor destroyed is eternal ---ergo inviolate--- truth.  If your reject this human conclusion then you should state so. Take a breath and try to focus and a greater whole set and not just a narrow set that you have difficulty in stepping outside of. Please and thank you
#33
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@ebuc
I accept that the laws of physics apply to our local (observable) physical universe. Now you just have to demonstrate that they apply outside/before the universe if outside or before are even applicable words. Unfortunately to do so you would have to be able to observe conditions outside/before the universe and humans cannot do so. It doesn't matter if it is a logical common sense observation based on our current understanding of our local (observable) universe because logic combined with incomplete or inco6data can produce incorrect conclusions. 

Take this syllogism.

All Greeks wore beards
Plato was Greek
Therefor Plato were a beard.

It is perfectly logical and it is only common sense that if both premises are true then the conclusion must be also. However the first premise is flawed. We do not know that all Greeks were beards.

Now let's look at your first premise syllagistically.

The laws of thermodynamics apply to whatever came before the big bang

The laws of thermodynamics state that energy cannot be created or destroyed

All energy that makes up the universe must exist eternally.

Perfectly logical but the first premise has not been demonstrated. 



#34
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@ebuc
One point at a time. If your first point doesn't hold up then itjust be addressed before we move forward. 
#35
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@secularmerlin
I accept that the laws of physics apply to our local (observable) physical universe.
Your still confused. Cosmic = Universal = everywhere and everywhen.

Now you just have to demonstrate that they apply outside/before the universe if outside or before are even applicable words.
Oh heaven forbid you even consider that we live in finite occupied space Universe, and there is only one rational, logical conclusion is to what is outside of such a scenario ---macro-infinite, non-occupied space---.  

Our cosmic/Universal  laws only apply to occupied space.  I think your still confused on many issues regarding time, space and cosmic/Universal laws.

Unfortunately to do so you would have to be able to observe conditions outside/before the universe and humans cannot do so.
Your still confused. It is irrational, illogical and lacks of common sense to keep saying ..."before the universe"... Finite, occupied space Universe is eternally existent, ergo in align with the cosmic/Universal laws of physics.  Are you on or off you medications? Seriously dude.

It doesn't matter if it is a logical common sense observation based on our current understanding of our local (observable) universe because logic combined with incomplete or inco6data can produce incorrect conclusions. 
1} We have no evidence of our occupied space Universe not being finite and we observe the opposite,

2} we have no evidence of our known cosmic/Universal laws being false, irrespective of what you want to believe ---without any rational, logical common sense-----, much less evidence to refute them,

3} ditto all of my above and address my comments as stated.

Take this syllogism.
You take your syllogism and address to my comments as stated and add in rational logical common sense based on observation to your comments.  You have known, other than to say we dont know for sure and on the atter part I agree we dont know for sure about some things regarding Universe.

The laws of thermodynamics apply to whatever came before the big bang
If big bang = Universe, then you have no evidence or rational logical common sense to keep repeating a false narrative ..."before the big bang"...

Please try to stay on track with the exact issues here SM.  either take your pills or get off them I dont care. Just get you head off false, irrational, illogical, lack of common sense and evidence scenarios and attempt to have a rationa disscussion for a change.

The laws of thermodynamics state that energy cannot be created or destroyed
So you can repeat what ive stated and known for 100 or more years. It is irrelevant to all of you false scenarios above.

All energy that makes up the universe must exist eternally.
Yes, you can state a rational, logical common sense statement based on evidence, then you do the following non-sense.

Perfectly logical but the first premise has not been demonstrated. 
An  which is the "first premis" that you believe has not been demonstrated?  I think your kind of confused person in these regards.
#36
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
Ignoring everything else and just focusing on this

Your still confused. Cosmic = Universal = everywhere and everywhen.
There is no reason to think we have observed more than a small fraction of what exists so arguments concerning what exists every where and every when are by necessity purely conjecture. Your logic is not flawed your available information is just insufficient. It is a structural flaw in your argument. Perhaps you should reformulate the argument to eliminate this flaw and we ccx an try again. 

#37
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@secularmerlin
There is no reason to think we have observed more than a small fraction of what exists
We dont have any idea and other hand I think we do have evidence  that infers we are near the end of our finite. I was years ago site I went too, Will have to link to it. 

so arguments concerning what exists every where and every when are by necessity purely conjecture.
That makes no sense and just goes to show your still confused about a cosmic/Universal law of physics is and is not.

Universal means everywhere and everywhen.  Until you can grasp these simple concepts that are accepted truths of any Universal/Cosmic law is the norm, not  what you believe or have stated

Your logic is not flawed your available information is just insufficient.
Your lack of any ability to follow rational, logical common sense and have access to any logic and observed evidence is great.

It is a structural flaw in your argument. Perhaps you should reformulate the argument to eliminate this flaw and we ccx an try again.
What argument are refering too.  You above is mostly false nonsense based on not one iota of observed evidence of well accept cosmic/Universal laws.
#38
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3

When you say that something exists eternally you are making a claim. Claims require a burden of proof. Yoir claim concerns things outside the local observable spacetime. You cannot directly observe the unobservable so you assume that it resembles what has been observed. This is logical and based on common sense. It is also beyond our epistemology.

I would consider it a personal favor if you stopped referring to the very humble admition that there are things we cannot be certain of and that this is one of them as egotistical behavior. That is nonsense. 
#39
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@secularmerlin
When you say that something exists eternally you are making a claim.
Based on observation and resultant discovery of 1st law { cosmic/Universal and physical } of thermodynamics.  You appear confused on this issue yet it is well documented and well accepted by 99% of people who are familiar.

Claims require a burden of proof.
There exists only evidence of the above claim from which a deducation of eternally existence of occupied space is rational, logical common sense.

Yoir claim concerns things outside the local observable spacetime.
YOur still confused. We observe Universe and there is no evidence of 1st law of thermodynamics not being valid, despite your lack of knowledge and lack of evidence on this issue.

You cannot directly observe the unobservable so you assume that it resembles what has been observed.
Huh? I have no idea what your talking about in the latter above. Are you on or off you medications SM?

This is logical and based on common sense. It is also beyond our epistemology.
Huh? You have lost me again.

I would consider it a personal favor if you stopped referring to the very humble admition that there are things we cannot be certain of and that this is one of them as egotistical behavior. That is nonsense.
I calls them as I see them and I see alot of your types around the net, who have ego based mental blockage to truth, facts, and rational, logical common sense deductions ---ex 1st law { cosmic/Universal } of thermodynamics---  based on our observations and evidence.

Place your ego to the side when you want to have a rational, logical common sense disscussion, and address the specific comments by me that you believe are false or flawed or whatever.

We live in a finite ---that is all that has ever been observed --- occupied space Universe that is eternally existent ---see 1st law---  ergo Universe is the only perpetual motion machine.

When you have evidence or rational, logical common sense, based on observations and evidence.  pleases share.  You rarely if ever had done such.



#40
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@ebuc
Huh? You have lost me again.
We say this to each other a lot. Let me try to say it differently. If you see butterflies for the first time in a field and all of them are blue you can logically infer from your observations that all butterflies are blue. Based on only your current observations and nothing else that ou s not an illogical assumption. The problem is that you have not seen all butterflies. 

Everything we have ever observed comports with the physical laws we observe (or seems to but that is a different discussion) but we have not observed all the things there are (presumably). I am willing to operate under the assumption that the laws of physics are universal until some new information comes along but we really don't know. We have not seen all the butterflies.



#41
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@secularmerlin
Address the specific comment by me your refering too,---you very rarely do that---- I stated nothing about butterflies.
#42
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@ebuc
It's called a metaphor. If you don't understand metaphors and I don't understand your blocks of symbols we may be in trouble.
#43
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@secularmerlin
It's called a metaphor.

Please address the specific comment by me your refering too,---you very rarely do that---- I stated nothing about butterflies.

If you don't understand metaphors and I don't understand your blocks of symbols we may be in trouble.

There are no or very few "blocks of symbols" in my last 5 messages and this is more evidence your operating from and ego based mental blockage t any thing I state. Are you off or on your medications SM? You appear to me as a confused person.
#44
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@ebuc
Do you know what a metaphor is?

#45
Castin
Castin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,239
3
2
7
Castin's avatar
Castin
3
2
7
There is no meaning in the universe save that which is projected onto the universe by humans. I consider meaning to be something that must come from within, not without. It is up to us to choose a purpose and decide why we are here. It's a daunting prospect.
#46
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,074
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@secularmerlin
I would suggest that the butterflies thing was more of an analogy than a metaphor.
#47
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@zedvictor4
Sure. I'm still at a loss for where to go from here. 
#48
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@secularmerlin
Please address the specific comment by me your refering too,---you very rarely do that---- I stated nothing about butterflies.

#49
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@Castin
There is no meaning in the universe save that which is projected onto the universe by humans. I consider meaning to be something that must come from within, not without. It is up to us to choose a purpose and decide why we are here. It's a daunting prospect.
My sentiments also, for 20  or more years.  The only purpose of our eternally existent, finite, occupied space Universe is that which humans apply to it

#50
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@ebuc
Well how else can I say it. You said the cosmos is eternal and there is no way to know. The laws of thermodynamics may well break down in the time before the big bang. At least that is my best understanding of our best understanding.

That was the very first thing you said and I asked if you can demonstrate that the it is eternal rather than just baldly asserting it.

I understand thermodynamic law we just don't know if it works outside the local observable physical universe.

If you want to have a conversation address this first. If you don't want a conversation then leave me alone. I'm good either way but I do not have to accept your claims without evidence. 
#51
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@secularmerlin
Well how else can I say it. You said the cosmos is eternal and there is no way to know.
Yes there is, it is called the 1st law of thermodynamics and your clueless as to what that means even after Ive explained it to you countless times.

You have serious ego based mental blockage to 1st law of thermodynamics just becuase Ebuc presented to you.  Sad :--(

The laws of thermodynamics may well break down in the time before the big bang.
1} You have no evidence or rational, logical common sense concernin an "break down" of 1st law of thermodynamics,

2} you have no evidence or rational logical common sense concerning  any "time before big bang".

Pleas share when you can actually learn to address the specifics of what I state here above, with evidence and rational, logical, common sense.  You fail at both some 95% of the time. Go figure. oh yeah, I already have, you have an ego based mental blockage to anything I present. Old news.
At least that is my best understanding of our best understanding.

That was the very first thing you said and I asked if you can demonstrate that the it is eternal rather than just baldly asserting it.

I understand thermodynamic law we just don't know if it works outside the local observable physical universe.
False you obivious do not or you wouldnt contiune to make irrational, illogical and lack of common sense statements in those regards.

Outside of our eternally existent, finite, occupied space Universe, is macro-infinite, non-occupied space ergo irrelevant to 1st law of thermodynamics. Are you on or off you meds DM? Seriously dude, you have serious ego based mental blockage to simple truths and simple rational, logical common sense.

If you want to have a conversation address this first. If you don't want a conversation then leave me alone. I'm good either way but I do not have to accept your claims without evidence.
I have address those specfic comments by you several times, My comments fall on you deaf ears and blind eyes.  Go figure. I have and it is that you have a serious ego based mental blockage to anything I state, and you avoid addressing the specifics of my comments by not supply those speciics when you go off on your butterfly walks in the park.


#52
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
you have no evidence or rational logical common sense concerning  any "time before big bang".
This is my exact point. We have no evidence that there was a time before the big bang or even if before is even a sensical term to use.


you have no evidence or rational logical common sense concerning  any "time before big bang".

You said it.

#53
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,074
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@secularmerlin
If there was nothing, then an event requiring duration would obviously not occur. Therefore time would be rendered somewhat irrelevant.

Time in the purest sense is simply the opportunity.

And based on our own witness something must have taken advantage of the opportunity. 

We can therefore extrapolate from this, that the opportunity must have always been available.
#54
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@zedvictor4
Ok what form did this opportunity take before it was taken? And how exactly donl we know it was always available rather than simply available when it was taken? It doesn't seem like we know what this opportunity was or if it qualifies as eternal. 
#55
Nemiroff
Nemiroff's avatar
Debates: 15
Posts: 232
1
3
9
Nemiroff's avatar
Nemiroff
1
3
9
-->
@zedvictor4
nothing can occur without time. It is stasis.
events occur in time.

#56
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,074
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Nemiroff
Something obviously did occur. So there was obviously time available.

As I stated. In the purest sense time was simply the opportunity.

I think that we often attempt to unnecessarily apply tangibility to time.
#57
Nemiroff
Nemiroff's avatar
Debates: 15
Posts: 232
1
3
9
Nemiroff's avatar
Nemiroff
1
3
9
-->
@zedvictor4
I dont believe time is tangible, but i disagree with your opportunity definition.
Time must have existed before the big bang in some form, maybe even space. That is what seems to make the most logical sense.

#58
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,074
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Nemiroff
I agree entirely.

That was what I was trying to express.

Take the science out of time and space and just accept them for what they are.
#59
Nemiroff
Nemiroff's avatar
Debates: 15
Posts: 232
1
3
9
Nemiroff's avatar
Nemiroff
1
3
9
-->
@zedvictor4
But there is no need to take science out. Science is what lead us to such options by discovering the big bang to begin with.

The bang was the beginning of "our" universe. "Our" space-time. It has no idea, nor claims to know what happened at the moment of, and before the big bang. Thus all these options are valid hypothesis, although untestable.

This discussion is pure philosophy, but that doesnt mean we cant use the facts of science as tools for our speculations. 
#60
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,074
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Nemiroff
Of course.

Philosophically though I prefer to refer to the correlation of the separate possibilities of space and time rather than to the one idea of "space time".