5 ms·
It's always amusing to see physicists, no matter how bright, step into metaphysics without the slightest idea of what they're doing, or even that they're doing
by cpr 16y ago
It's always amusing to see physicists, no matter how bright, step into metaphysics without the slightest idea of what they're doing, or even that they're doing it.
The universe does not necessarily exist. Something or someone had to create it from nothing at some point (which we can call the beginning of time).
Even the concept of time is a function of a changing material universe (time is a measure of change).
Aristotle figured all this out about 3000 years ago. Even though his physics was crude, I wonder why people ignore his metaphysics? I suppose simply through ignorance and neglect, and lack of modern attention to the topic.
My brother has started an Institute for the Study of Nature (http://isnature.org http://isnature.org) to address exactly these issues, and has found some very encouraging support among modern scientists, fairly thinly scattered about various fields.
http://isnature.org/about.htm http://isnature.org/about.htm is a good summary of this new exploration.
(He also started it after becoming disillusioned with the intelligent design movement, which has become both a-scientific and anti-philosophical. Or, at least, that's my weak understanding of what he's told me.)
- lazyant 16y ago"The universe does not necessarily exist. Something or someone had to create it from nothing at some point (which we can call the beginning of time)." Not necessarily. The universe could have been existing "forever". If something created it, who created the creator? if this creator is "special" why not the universe?
- cpr 16y agoNow you are using the "uncreated creator" argument of Aristotle, who proved that there must be, at the back of all creation, one unmoved mover, one uncreated creator, etc.
- lazyant 16y agoHe didn't "prove", it's just an argument. The "all things have a mover" doesn't have to apply to the universe. (If it was proven then there would be no atheists right?). Also the "unmoved mover" could be the universe itself, why not? I can perfectly imagine the universe being forever the same as a creator being forever (if anything the first is easier since we have no evidence of the latter).
- cpr 16y agoYes, if everyone thought very carefully and honestly about the contingency of material beings and what that implies about the existence of the universe, they'd all be at least theists. ;-)