(April 11, 2014 at 1:10 pm)alpha male Wrote:

(April 11, 2014 at 1:04 pm)bennyboy Wrote: I. . .
don't. . .
know!

Meh, that's what people say when they don't like where things are leading.

That's also what people say when they, you know, don't know.
At least if they're being honest.

You'd have to define "honesty" for that to make any sense to him.

(April 11, 2014 at 12:59 pm)alpha male Wrote:

(April 11, 2014 at 11:31 am)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: You appear to be misunderstanding what LL is saying here. Or perhaps I am.

I understand it. I disagree with it.

I'm unconvinced that's the case. You're speaking of the existential beginning of a singularity that he appears to be saying never existed at all.

(April 11, 2014 at 3:44 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: I'm unconvinced that's the case. You're speaking of the existential beginning of a singularity that he appears to be saying never existed at all.

I think he's saying that the singularity existed, but that the physics concept of time did not coexist with it, hence time references to it are meaningless.

LL: Who's right?

(April 11, 2014 at 3:51 pm)alpha male Wrote:

(April 11, 2014 at 3:44 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: I'm unconvinced that's the case. You're speaking of the existential beginning of a singularity that he appears to be saying never existed at all.

I think he's saying that the singularity existed, but that the physics concept of time did not coexist with it, hence time references to it are meaningless.

LL: Who's right?

Could be, and were that the case, temporal relationships would appear to be at least indescribable in the same terms that apply to the temporal universe.

Regardless of what LL meant, there are inflationary cosmological models that don't require singularity. I lean towards singularity being a mathematical oddity of an incomplete model rather than being a feature of reality. Of course I don't claim to know one way or the other.

(April 11, 2014 at 1:13 pm)Kitanetos Wrote:

(April 11, 2014 at 1:04 pm)bennyboy Wrote: I. . .
don't. . .
know!

However, I do know that religion is an invention of man and I do know that there are no deities in existence. I do know.

Gods, yes, deities, I'm not so sure. I don't think many people here identify as "gnostic atheist." I mean, what does a deity even look like?

(April 11, 2014 at 3:51 pm)alpha male Wrote: I think he's saying that the singularity existed, but that the physics concept of time did not coexist with it, hence time references to it are meaningless.

A singularity is a very strange mathematical and philosophical beast. A true Big Bang-type singularity is essentially a non-conscious deity: existent but having no beginning, not created but having all existent things arise from it etc.

If there is something intrinsic to all matter that allows for some kind of consciousness, then I'd say a singularity is dangerously close to a Deity. I don't know how you'd ever determine at what level mind is matter, or supervenes on forms of matter, or kinds of matter, or only on specific kinds of information flow, etc. This is because we only know of one form, one kind of matter, and one kind of information flow that gives consciousness-- our own.

(April 11, 2014 at 6:56 pm)bennyboy Wrote:

(April 11, 2014 at 1:13 pm)Kitanetos Wrote: However, I do know that religion is an invention of man and I do know that there are no deities in existence. I do know.

Gods, yes, deities, I'm not so sure. I don't think many people here identify as "gnostic atheist." I mean, what does a deity even look like?

(April 11, 2014 at 3:51 pm)alpha male Wrote: I think he's saying that the singularity existed, but that the physics concept of time did not coexist with it, hence time references to it are meaningless.

A singularity is a very strange mathematical and philosophical beast. A true Big Bang-type singularity is essentially a non-conscious deity: existent but having no beginning, not created but having all existent things arise from it etc.

If there is something intrinsic to all matter that allows for some kind of consciousness, then I'd say a singularity is dangerously close to a Deity. I don't know how you'd ever determine at what level mind is matter, or supervenes on forms of matter, or kinds of matter, or only on specific kinds of information flow, etc. This is because we only know of one form, one kind of matter, and one kind of information flow that gives consciousness-- our own.

Consciousness is not matter it's the interaction between the matter.
This website is not matter it's the magnetic field on a hard drive.
To have a hard drive you need matter but the magnetic field itself is not matter.

I've thought about this before.

I concluded that the sentence fragment "from nothing" has the same meaning as "not from anything",
thus I concluded that there must be something that came from nothing (didn't come from anything) otherwise nothing would exist.

(April 11, 2014 at 8:08 pm)Coffee Jesus Wrote: I concluded that the sentence fragment "from nothing" has the same meaning as "not from anything",
thus I concluded that there must be something that came from nothing (didn't come from anything) otherwise nothing would exist.

I doubt if cosmology is answerable to the logical syntax of our language, so inference from the language is suspect.

But why do you assume that there was ever nothing for something to come from? I find it extremely doubtful that a true nothing ever existed or ever will.

(April 11, 2014 at 10:47 pm)whateverist Wrote:

(April 11, 2014 at 8:08 pm)Coffee Jesus Wrote: I concluded that the sentence fragment "from nothing" has the same meaning as "not from anything",
thus I concluded that there must be something that came from nothing (didn't come from anything) otherwise nothing would exist.

I doubt if cosmology is answerable to the logical syntax of our language, so inference from the language is suspect.

But why do you assume that there was ever nothing for something to come from? I find it extremely doubtful that a true nothing ever existed or ever will.

Time is something.