4 ms·

The explanation I've found most persuasive is to take a purely philosophical approach: the universe had no beginning and will have no end because those concepts

by abtinf 7y ago

The explanation I've found most persuasive is to take a purely philosophical approach: the universe had no beginning and will have no end because those concepts do not apply. The universe is everything. If there was something that "caused" the universe, it would just be part of the universe. If there is something after the universe ends, it would just be part of the universe. There is nothing outside the universe, if there was it would be part of the universe.

FartyMcFarter 7y ago
Yep. If you're a programmer, think about a "game of life" simulation (or any other simulation). The answer to "what was there before the first state in my simulation?" is simply: "nothing, within this universe".
jerf 7y ago
That's not an explanation, that's just a relabeling, moving the questions people have from the label "the universe" to the label "the observable universe", but neither answering them, nor making them any less relevant.
- abtinf 7y ago
  The universe is everything. By definition, there can be no evidence for anything outside, before, or after it. Any such evidence would be in the universe. There are no valid questions about it, nor valid answers. Any claims about something outside the universe are neither true nor false—they are completely arbitrary. They have the same intellectual status as God.
  - jerf 7y ago
    I addressed what you said, you just blindly re-iterated your point without any engagement with mine at all. To spell it out even more clearly, what if "the universe" is larger than the observable universe? In that case, it would still be reasonable to ask where did the observable universe come from? For instance, if we are a simulation, you would place the simulator in "the universe", which as a definition is a fine place to put such a simulator. But it means that questions about our observable universe would then be fair game. You're trying to shut down thought by simply redefining terms, but even by your own definitions, it doesn't work. It's not a sophisticated or well-thought out position, it's just "I give up entirely, and so should everybody else" dressed up in pretty clothes that are trying to look cool. You're welcome to give up in that way, most people do by default after all, but you've got no grounds to insist that others also give up.
    - abtinf 7y ago
      This is precisely the form of argument made by religionists.
jchook 7y ago
I agree. The problem seems to be the word “Universe”. As soon as you assign a word to a thing, it gains boundaries that separate it from nothing and everything else. My favorite description of origins of things comes from Spencer G. Brown in Laws of Form. My own short poem about the origin of things: First there is none, and so just one. Yet none and one are two. Once there’s two, they share a room, hence there now are three. Remembering the two before, the three completes the five, and on the numbers multiply until they are complete. And a koan: The student asks the master, please teach me. The master replies, how can I teach you if I have no tongue with which to speak, and no space within which to exist?

by abtinf 7y ago

FartyMcFarter 7y ago

Yep. If you're a programmer, think about a "game of life" simulation (or any other simulation). The answer to "what was there before the first state in my simulation?" is simply: "nothing, within this universe".

jerf 7y ago

That's not an explanation, that's just a relabeling, moving the questions people have from the label "the universe" to the label "the observable universe", but neither answering them, nor making them any less relevant.

abtinf 7y ago
The universe is everything. By definition, there can be no evidence for anything outside, before, or after it. Any such evidence would be in the universe. There are no valid questions about it, nor valid answers. Any claims about something outside the universe are neither true nor false—they are completely arbitrary. They have the same intellectual status as God.
- jerf 7y ago
  I addressed what you said, you just blindly re-iterated your point without any engagement with mine at all. To spell it out even more clearly, what if "the universe" is larger than the observable universe? In that case, it would still be reasonable to ask where did the observable universe come from? For instance, if we are a simulation, you would place the simulator in "the universe", which as a definition is a fine place to put such a simulator. But it means that questions about our observable universe would then be fair game. You're trying to shut down thought by simply redefining terms, but even by your own definitions, it doesn't work. It's not a sophisticated or well-thought out position, it's just "I give up entirely, and so should everybody else" dressed up in pretty clothes that are trying to look cool. You're welcome to give up in that way, most people do by default after all, but you've got no grounds to insist that others also give up.
  - abtinf 7y ago
    This is precisely the form of argument made by religionists.

jchook 7y ago

I agree. The problem seems to be the word “Universe”. As soon as you assign a word to a thing, it gains boundaries that separate it from nothing and everything else. My favorite description of origins of things comes from Spencer G. Brown in Laws of Form. My own short poem about the origin of things: First there is none, and so just one. Yet none and one are two. Once there’s two, they share a room, hence there now are three. Remembering the two before, the three completes the five, and on the numbers multiply until they are complete. And a koan: The student asks the master, please teach me. The master replies, how can I teach you if I have no tongue with which to speak, and no space within which to exist?