Universe: Created or Eternal?

Posted by j_IR1776wg 12 years ago to Philosophy
40 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

I wondered as a child whether the stories I was hearing in church (RC) were true or just stories. After many decades of research and reading, I am convinced that these two: Created or Eternal are the only two possible reasons for the Universe to exist. In another venue, I expressed my thoughts as follows:

It doth puzzle me
That the universe can only be
Created or here eternally.

Someone or something
Had to supervise diligently,
Was it God or Gravity?

The problem you see is that
No one understands infinity.

No Theologian, Philosopher,
Physicist or Mathematician has
Ever claimed to see forever
Forward or backward infinitely,

That is why I'll neither Theist nor
Atheist be till someone can enlighten
Me on this matter of infinity.


Since I believe that our five senses along with
Aristotle's logic and Galileo's scientific method
are all we have to correctly identify the universe,
I'm at roadblock. Has anyone in the Gulch thought this through to a more certain conclusion?



All Comments

  • Posted by j_IR1776wg 12 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Last post on this thread.
    There are 3 known forces which account for all known physical phenomena in the universe;
    Strong force
    Gravatational force
    Electroweak force.
    There is no time force.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 12 years ago in reply to this comment.
    They were still measuring this very real physical phenomena. When we measure gravity, we are measuring weight or force-no difference. We use tools that are available to measure phenomena in Physics. Those tools of varying accuracy change, but that does not mean these physical parameters or forces do not exist.
    You made me have to spell that word and I do not know how. twice. so now you get this
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8N_tupPBt...
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by j_IR1776wg 12 years ago in reply to this comment.
    When Galileo dropped the cannon balls of off the tower of pisa, his students used their heartbeats to measure "time". When Romer circa 1688 measured the speed of light using Jupiter's moon Io, he used the ticks of a mechanical clock. They weren't measuring "time"; they were measuring heartbeats and clock ticks. There is no physical entity called time.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 12 years ago in reply to this comment.
    The concept of Time is inherent in the speed of light, just as gravity exists whether we measure it or know about it or we're around. "Existence exists" and includes TIME. to suggest Time is some sort of "artifact" is to make a statement such as the Earth is flat. What is your larger point because your logic is moving quickly (in time) into the up is down category
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by j_IR1776wg 12 years ago in reply to this comment.

    (One of the reasons I hate philosophy and prefer hard proof, you can literally reason anything into existence):-)

    Philosophy (Aristotle's logic for instance) must precede Science or you'd have no way to get your hard proof.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by j_IR1776wg 12 years ago in reply to this comment.
    AR's basic premise is that "Existence exists". Neither she nor anyone I've read has premised that "Time exists"
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by j_IR1776wg 12 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Yes human presence is not required for photons to move at speed C. I guess what I'm trying to say is that Time is a human concept and not a physical fact. This leads to an excellent article title "Time - who needs it?".
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by gblaze47 12 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Okay, event horizon? Do you mean as far as light has traveled since the dawn of time? If the universe expanded faster than light, as many now claim, there is still much of the universe not seen that has crossed the light 'event horizon' still the universe had a beginning to have any 'event horizon', if it hadn't and we lived in an everlasting 'steady state' universe then all of the light would have reached us by now.
    Multiple Universe are okay because it allows you to then predict anything you want because ultimately there's a universe that exists that allows for it. Why so many like this idea is because then you no longer have to prove it, because it's in another universe that we don't have any hope of detecting or seeing.

    (One of the reasons I hate philosophy and prefer hard proof, you can literally reason anything into existence)
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 12 years ago in reply to this comment.
    now we talk about multiple universes. we used to talk about the Universe having an "ending point" now we talk about event horizons
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Wonky 12 years ago in reply to this comment.
    This sounds suspiciously like it violates the primacy of existence premise of Objectivism. It's like saying that if there were no humans, trees would not take time to grow.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 12 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Speed of Light. Radio-Active Decay. Movement. Frequency of Light. all of these things happen(ed) regardless of whether humans are here to measure it not. Interesting about Time:In Physics most principles are Time reversible except for entropy, which is why it is often called the Arrow of Time.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Kab9dkDZ...
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by j_IR1776wg 12 years ago in reply to this comment.
    There is no objective evidence for the existance of time. In a universe composed of matter and energy in motion, what we humans call time is mearly the distance between events. If there were no humans to measure the distance, there would be no time.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by j_IR1776wg 12 years ago in reply to this comment.
    "Why does Time have to have a beginning or start?"
    Good point! Would time exist if we humans weren't here to measure it?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 12 years ago in reply to this comment.
    good questions. my point is more about the conceptual computability with not knowing.
    If logic points in a certain direction, one must accept the direction it's heading in even though they do not have the "next" answer. Too often,, even our most celebrated scientists and mathematicians ignore evidence because they were uncomfortable with the implications. Why does Time have to have a beginning or start?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Lucky 12 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Hi kh - answers depend on questions.
    What is north of the North Pole?
    What happens below the temperature of absolute zero?
    What came before the start of time?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 12 years ago in reply to this comment.
    why can't it? Implied in Conservation of Energy and Matter. If conserved, matter and energy have always been here in some state.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 12 years ago in reply to this comment.
    this is above my pay grade. ;) My husband, who is a EE, MS Physics says this is quite interesting.
    His only sticking point is combining positron to electron would not always happen in that time frame. for example, a PET scan uses positrons longer(before annihilating) than you suggest, in order to be of use. Inventors rely on this all the time.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by j_IR1776wg 12 years ago in reply to this comment.
    I am neither a mystic nor religious. They both depend on Faith. As I said above, we have our five senses, Aristotle's logic and Galileo's scientific method which depend on our ability to employ Reason. Using all three, I am unable to prove whether the universe was created or has existed eternally. Can anything exist without a beginning?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by richrobinson 12 years ago in reply to this comment.
    It's a question that is impossible to answer with any certainty. Like how do you throw away a garbage can? I guess we are here for such a short time it is hard to think in terms of billions of years.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo