timelapse of the universe - General

[QUOTE=sgman91;53187013] With that said, we seem to just have a fundamental disagreement. I simply don't see how any system with certain properties, like a probability distribution of outputs, can simply exist without any explanation and without existing arbitrarily. That seems like an irrational conclusion.[/QUOTE] I don't understand why you demand rational explanations as if we had the right to claim that we can even comprehend them. Our brains are stuck within the limits of our language and perception of the world, and so we try model things within those limits. How can we know that there isn't a more elementary particle we will never discover because it's so small? What if the way it behaves is a big fuck you to what you call logical and rational?

Didn't know it takes millions of years for water to flow.

[QUOTE=sgman91;53186318]It's a totally relevant scientific question. It needs an answer, even if we don't know of one. To say that it just exists inexplicably is no different, and provides even less explanatory power, than saying, "God did it."[/QUOTE] "it just exists inexplicably" is basically "It does, and we don't know why", which I want to make clear is saying [I]much less[/I] than "God did it.". I think everyone here can agree that the universe ostensibly exists, the difference is you're saying "God did it." is an equal answer to "Don't know why." - Hopefully you understand why, one is making a positive claim ("God did it.") the other isn't. As for the "Prime Mover" , in the end it's likely an unknowable, so debating about it doesn't do much. [editline]9th March 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=sgman91;53187013]With that said, we seem to just have a fundamental disagreement. I simply don't see how any system with certain properties, like a probability distribution of outputs, can simply exist without any explanation and without existing arbitrarily. That seems like an irrational conclusion.[/QUOTE] The universe isn't bound by what we consider "Rational" or "Logical" - and it's why the scientific process is so important to our understanding of such a universe; we can only observe and infer rules that the universe itself (appears to) follow. The universe ostensibly exists, [I]why[/I] it exists, or [I]why[/I] it appears to operate in certain ways (such as the speed of light) are answers I don't think are knowable. Barring simulation theory, or one of the religions [I]was[/I] right; There isn't a way to use the rules of our universe to deduce what happened before those rules existed (time, space) - meaning questions like the "Primer Mover" are futile.

[QUOTE=sgman91;53187013]Let me clarify something really fast. A probability distribution is a mathematical description of something. The mathematical concept of a probability distribution can't cause anything directly. So what we're really talking about here is some system that is described by a probability distribution. With that said, we seem to just have a fundamental disagreement. I simply don't see how any system with certain properties, like a probability distribution of outputs, can simply exist without any explanation and without existing arbitrarily. That seems like an irrational conclusion.[/QUOTE] You're asking a question that, even outside of the limits of our wildest imaginations, cannot be answered. Although maybe fun to think about depending on your point of view, it's ultimately an unscientific exercise which is why you're not getting a particularly warm reception trying to pass it off as such.

oh fuck what have i done

If the universe is expanding from no point in particular, aren't things in it such as us and planets expanding also?

[QUOTE=Talishmar;53189560]If the universe is expanding from no point in particular, aren't things in it such as us and planets expanding also?[/QUOTE] The way I understand it, the space between everything is expanding, including in planets and us, but gravity is strong enough to counter it and keep everything together. However, if the expansion keeps accelerating, at some point that will stop being true and everything gets pulled apart, which is known as the Big Rip.

[QUOTE=glitchvid;53188769]The universe ostensibly exists, [I]why[/I] it exists, or [I]why[/I] it appears to operate in certain ways (such as the speed of light) are answers I don't think are knowable. Barring simulation theory, or one of the religions [I]was[/I] right; There isn't a way to use the rules of our universe to deduce what happened before those rules existed (time, space) - meaning questions like the "Primer Mover" are futile.[/QUOTE] Exactly this. We can't use the rules for Monopoly to determine how Betrayal at the House on the Hill works. Presuming that they must run on the same rules to begin with because 'our rules seem so logically ordered and consistent' is folly. You can't observe the rules for Doom by playing Dwarf Fortress - no matter how good, detailed, or accurate your observations on Dwarf Fortress are. If the prior universe before the Big Bang was working on a 'different Operating System' then using what we know about our present system to understand it e: may be an exercise in futility. If they are discrete entities, which they appear to be, then we can make no determinations whatsoever as we would first require evidence that 'the world before ours is the same as ours' which we can already rule out as not true. The real question is 'how similar are they' which is a thing we can't answer without being able to 'see beyond the Big Bang' -- which would require some means of observation that lies well beyond my current understanding of physics as you'd need to be able to see not the instant before the big bang (which we already can't observe yet) but the months and years before -- presuming that time even existed at that point. The only way to go forward from there, then, would be prove that 'despite time and space not existing, the universe existed in the same configuration' - which would be difficult given that thing such as particle decay may not have even existed in the 'time before time' - which has a dizzying array of knock-on consequences.

[QUOTE=glitchvid;53188769]"it just exists inexplicably" is basically "It does, and we don't know why", which I want to make clear is saying [I]much less[/I] than "God did it.". I think everyone here can agree that the universe ostensibly exists, the difference is you're saying "God did it." is an equal answer to "Don't know why." - Hopefully you understand why, one is making a positive claim ("God did it.") the other isn't.[/QUOTE] I most definitely do not mean, "It does, and we don't know why," when I say "inexplicable." I'm referring to there being no answer to be found. That it just exists totally and completely arbitrarily, for no reason what-so-ever. It has no cause. There is actually no answer to question, "Why is there something rather than nothing." There just is something, and there's no answer to why it's there or how it got there. As far as I can tell, there are only two possibilities to the question of why there is something rather than nothing: 1) There is no answer. This is what I explained above. I'm not saying that we don't know the answer or that we even can't find the answer, but that there is no answer to be found. Something just exists inexplicably and arbitrarily. 2) The most basic 'something' is rationally necessary. It finds the reason for its existence within its own nature. In essence, it MUST exist. There is no possible world where this something doesn't exist. You can't even come up with a possible world without it. Note that this question is different than the question of what that "something" is. You don't need to know the specifics of that something to consider the rational possibilities under consideration. If you choose number 1, then you're saying that it's totally possible for things to happen without any cause or explanation. This answer also provides literally zero explanatory power for why the universe is the way that it is. It isn't this way for any reason what-so-ever. It just happened. For no reason. It's a brute fact. If you choose number 2, then you're in the same boat as a theist. You're positing something that exists necessarily, from which everything else flows. If you know of a third or fourth option, please explain.

[QUOTE=sgman91;53189902]I most definitely do not mean, "It does, and we don't know why," when I say "inexplicable." I'm referring to there being no answer to be found. That it just exists totally and completely arbitrarily, for no reason what-so-ever. It has no cause. There is actually no answer to question, "Why is there something rather than nothing." There just is something, and there's no answer to why it's there or how it got there. As far as I can tell, there are only two possibilities to the question of why there is something rather than nothing: 1) There is no answer. This is what I explained above. I'm not saying that we don't know the answer or that we even can't find the answer, but that there is no answer to be found. Something just exists inexplicably and arbitrarily. 2) The most basic 'something' is rationally necessary. It finds the reason for its existence within its own nature. In essence, it MUST exist. There is no possible world where this something doesn't exist. You can't even come up with a possible world without it. Note that this question is different than the question of what that "something" is. You don't need to know the specifics of that something to consider the rational possibilities under consideration. If you choose number 1, then you're saying that it's totally possible for things to happen without any cause or explanation. This answer also provides literally zero explanatory power for why the universe is the way that it is. It isn't this way for any reason what-so-ever. It just happened. For no reason. It's a brute fact. If you choose number 2, then you're in the same boat as a theist. You're positing something that exists necessarily, from which everything else flows. If you know of a third or fourth option, please explain.[/QUOTE] I ultimately don't know But I find it impossible to believe the universe as vast and as unknowable as it is, is subject to a potentially false dichotomy that is as simple as you've laid out here

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;53189916]I ultimately don't know But I find it impossible to believe the universe as vast and as unknowable as it is, is subject to a potentially false dichotomy that is as simple as you've laid out here[/QUOTE] Language makes simple what is otherwise horribly complex. A sentence in our terms may have no where near the same amount of complexity that it would entail in the 'real' world, and yet it can pick things to be talked about and say things true of it. You can say "There is a dog there" and although the word dog has nothing to do with the actual physical constitution of things we call dogs, or indeed whatever particular dog you are referring to at the time, we never-the-less agree that the word dog is making light of the object dog.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;53189916]I ultimately don't know But I find it impossible to believe the universe as vast and as unknowable as it is, is subject to a potentially false dichotomy that is as simple as you've laid out here[/QUOTE] That's fine, but the question is an important one because it's relevant to many of the challenges and claims that are made. For example, many atheists, including well known atheists like Richard Dawkins, will challenge theists by saying, "Well, what made God, then. How did he get there?" This question assumes that the theist is inherently incorrect in positing a necessary 'something' that started the whole chain of events, that everything, no matter what, must have an explanation outside of itself. The problem is that if the dichotomy I've presented is correct, then it simply isn't true. It may very well be that even the atheist is forced to assume some sort of necessary 'something,' and is in the same exact position. So fine, you can refuse to accept the premises I've given, but I would caution anyone against making arguments relevant to that sort of question until you've come up with some other possibility.

[QUOTE=sgman91;53190025]That's fine, but the question is an important one because it's relevant to many of the challenges and claims that are made. For example, many atheists, including well known atheists like Richard Dawkins, will challenge theists by saying, "Well, what made God, then. How did he get there?" This question assumes that the theist is inherently incorrect in positing a necessary 'something' that started the whole chain of events, that everything, no matter what, must have an explanation outside of itself. The problem is that if the dichotomy I've presented is correct, then it simply isn't true. It may very well be that even the atheist is forced to assume some sort of necessary 'something,' and is in the same exact position. So fine, you can refuse to accept the premises I've given, but I would caution anyone against making arguments relevant to that sort of question until you've come up with some other possibility.[/QUOTE] I firmly accept I don't know. I believe you don't know, I don't know, none of us can, or will know. Ultimately, they're questions that don't matter. We'll know when we die, and that's the only way we know. I don't however, see a "self necessitated" being as a mandatory in the dichotomy you've laid out, and I do not believe that in order to disagree, I need to provide another solution.

[QUOTE=sgman91;53189902]If you choose number 2, then you're in the same boat as a theist. You're positing something that exists necessarily, from which everything else flows.[/QUOTE] Intuitively I agree with your dichotomy, but I don't agree with this. [I]"There must be something rationally necessary that precedes the universe, but I don't know what or how"[/I] is not even close to the 'same boat' as saying [I]"There must be something rationally necessary that precedes the universe, and that thing is God"[/I], not to mention that atheists do not actually necessarily 'choose number 2'. The reason the question [I]"Well what made God?"[/I] works is that it usually follows after a religious person makes the argument that the universe is so complex that somebody must have created it, which is a logical argument that leads directly into an infinite spiral of turtles all the way down. You can't point out the same flaw in someone who just says [I]"I don't know"[/I]. [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;53189916]I ultimately don't know But I find it impossible to believe the universe as vast and as unknowable as it is, is subject to a potentially false dichotomy that is as simple as you've laid out here[/QUOTE] Well honestly, to me it looks like the two options boil down to 1. There is no explanation, and 2. There is an explanation. In that case, it's fairly agreeable to say that one or the other must be true.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;53190038]I firmly accept I don't know. I believe you don't know, I don't know, none of us can, or will know. Ultimately, they're questions that don't matter. We'll know when we die, and that's the only way we know. I don't however, see a "self necessitated" being as a mandatory in the dichotomy you've laid out, and I do not believe that in order to disagree, I need to provide another solution.[/QUOTE] The question has an answer, as I think you would agree. So if the two things I've given are incorrect, then there must be some other solution. If you have no alternative, and can't show that my options are rationally incoherent, then you're welcome to choose not to hold any belief, but I'm not sure how you would be able to actively argue against someone who did. I, personally, fall heavily on the second answer because the first provides zero explanatory power while the second can provide lots of explanatory power, depending on what the necessary 'something' is. [editline]9th March 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;53190096]Intuitively I agree with your dichotomy, but I don't agree with this. [I]"There must be something rationally necessary that precedes the universe, but I don't know what or how"[/I] is not even close to the 'same boat' as saying [I]"There must be something rationally necessary that precedes the universe, and that thing is God"[/I], not to mention that atheists do not actually necessarily 'choose number 2'.[/QUOTE] You're right that atheists don't necessarily choose #2, but I've found that's because they usually haven't thought about it very much (that's not an insult, it just isn't a topic many people consider). I would say, though, that #1 is extremely weak because it provides zero explanatory power. It is, in essence, a non-answer. With that said, unless someone can come up with a better explanation than God, then they are at best, at an equal footing. One of the interesting things about the God hypothesis is that it provides good explanatory power for why the universe is so rational. If the creator is rational, then it makes sense that the creation is rational. [QUOTE]The reason the question [I]"Well what made God?"[/I] works is that it usually follows after a religious person makes the argument that the universe is so complex that somebody must have created it, which is a logical argument that leads directly into an infinite spiral of turtles all the way down. You can't point out the same flaw in someone who just says [I]"I don't know"[/I].[/QUOTE] This is why pointing out that there are only two possibilities is relevant. You can say, "I don't know," but you only have two options. One of them gives essentially no explanation, and the other puts you in the same spot as the person you're arguing against, taking away the power of the argument. In either case, the argument loses its force.

[QUOTE=sgman91;53190098]This is why pointing out that there are only two possibilities is relevant. You can say, "I don't know," but you only have two options. One of them gives essentially no explanation, and the other puts you in the same spot as the person you're arguing against, taking away the power of the argument. In either case, the argument loses its force.[/QUOTE] I still don't agree with this. Saying 'there is a reason' hardly narrows down the answer to anything. It literally only rules out no reason, leaving room for any and all other possibilities, imaginable and unthinkable alike. That is in contrast to religious people who have very specific claims both about what the 'reason' is, how it came to be, when it came to be, that it has intentions and wants, what those intentions and wants are, etc. [editline]9th March 2018[/editline] I mean, let me make an example. You can say that there's only two options about the creation of humans: either there is no reason, or there is some reason. If I say "Humans were born by the Moon because the Moon got bored and wanted someone to witness the tides", I am absolutely not 'in the same boat' as someone who simply says [I]"there is a reason"[/I]. In this case, it's obviously different because we actually have data and testable theory, and the counter belief I made up hasn't been ingrained in society for many years, but otherwise it's the same idea. The fact that the question here instead relates to something that we currently have no data or testable theory for, doesn't just mean that literally any explanation is 'the same' as saying that there is an explanation.

All I can really do is point to what I consider to be a powerful analogy. In 20 billion years or so, there will no longer be evidence of other galaxies. Every galaxy in the universe will have moved so far away from any other galaxy that they will be isolated. Light will not reach them. They will no longer have any evidence of any stars in the universe beyond their own galaxy. This will lead any people who exist in such a time to conclusions about their universe that are rational, logical, and completely wrong. They will never be able to prove that the universe once contained billions, if not trillions of other galaxies just like theirs. They will believe their pocket of their reality is unique. And so will every sentient race, in every disparate galaxy so too believe that they are alone, and special. Information will not be lost to the universe, but it will be lost to them. And I believe we're already there, but not regarding the "Big Bang" but other elements of our universe. They are out of sight, information that is lost to us forever eternally. We can't even ask the right questions, or come up with the right ideas because the information that might suggest the things that could be real, is long, long gone.

[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;53190152]I still don't agree with this. Saying 'there is a reason' hardly narrows down the answer to anything. It literally only rules out no reason, leaving room for any and all other possibilities, imaginable and unthinkable alike. That is in contrast to religious people who have very specific claims both about what the 'reason' is, how it came to be, when it came to be, that it has intentions and wants, what those intentions and wants are, etc. [editline]9th March 2018[/editline] I mean, let me make an example. You can say that there's only two options about the creation of humans: either there is no reason, or there is some reason. If I say "Humans were born by the Moon because the Moon got bored and wanted someone to witness the tides", I am absolutely not 'in the same boat' as someone who simply says [I]"there is a reason"[/I]. In this case, it's obviously different because we actually have data and testable theory, and the counter belief I made up hasn't been ingrained in society for many years, but otherwise it's the same idea. The fact that the question here instead relates to something that we currently have no data or testable theory for, doesn't just mean that literally any explanation is 'the same' as saying that there is an explanation.[/QUOTE] My answer isn't just "there's a reason," though. The answer is that the reason is a necessary 'something.' That's a very specific kind of reason. It limits the possible solutions down quite a bit because essentially everything we know about is contingent, and not necessary. If you can postulate some other kind of thing, please do, but I don't see how any contingent thing could work. Something contingent would need a explanation for why it's that way instead of some other way. The only semi-necessary thing that might exist is logic, itself, or possibly other abstract ideas like mathematics. The problem is that these types of things don't do anything. They are only descriptions. So I'm not sure how they could logically cause, leaving aside material causes, something. [editline]9th March 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;53190430]All I can really do is point to what I consider to be a powerful analogy. In 20 billion years or so, there will no longer be evidence of other galaxies. Every galaxy in the universe will have moved so far away from any other galaxy that they will be isolated. Light will not reach them. They will no longer have any evidence of any stars in the universe beyond their own galaxy. This will lead any people who exist in such a time to conclusions about their universe that are rational, logical, and completely wrong. They will never be able to prove that the universe once contained billions, if not trillions of other galaxies just like theirs. They will believe their pocket of their reality is unique. And so will every sentient race, in every disparate galaxy so too believe that they are alone, and special. Information will not be lost to the universe, but it will be lost to them. And I believe we're already there, but not regarding the "Big Bang" but other elements of our universe. They are out of sight, information that is lost to us forever eternally. We can't even ask the right questions, or come up with the right ideas because the information that might suggest the things that could be real, is long, long gone.[/QUOTE] Your example is of a totally different kind, though. My question isn't evidential. It's purely logical deduction. Let's take a person living on an earth-like planet in the universe that you've described. They may never know about other planets. They may never know about anything beyond themselves. In fact, they may think their own galaxy is the only in existence, but they would still have the exact same logical question that I'm asking right now, and nothing about it would really change.

[QUOTE=sgman91;53189902]I most definitely do not mean, "It does, and we don't know why," when I say "inexplicable." I'm referring to there being no answer to be found. That it just exists totally and completely arbitrarily, for no reason what-so-ever. It has no cause. There is actually no answer to question, "Why is there something rather than nothing." There just is something, and there's no answer to why it's there or how it got there. As far as I can tell, there are only two possibilities to the question of why there is something rather than nothing: 1) There is no answer. This is what I explained above. I'm not saying that we don't know the answer or that we even can't find the answer, but that there is no answer to be found. Something just exists inexplicably and arbitrarily. 2) The most basic 'something' is rationally necessary. It finds the reason for its existence within its own nature. In essence, it MUST exist. There is no possible world where this something doesn't exist. You can't even come up with a possible world without it. Note that this question is different than the question of what that "something" is. You don't need to know the specifics of that something to consider the rational possibilities under consideration. If you choose number 1, then you're saying that it's totally possible for things to happen without any cause or explanation. This answer also provides literally zero explanatory power for why the universe is the way that it is. It isn't this way for any reason what-so-ever. It just happened. For no reason. It's a brute fact. If you choose number 2, then you're in the same boat as a theist. You're positing something that exists necessarily, from which everything else flows. If you know of a third or fourth option, please explain.[/QUOTE] Ultimately the universe either doesn't exist (as we know it), or does exist (as we know it). Those really the two core principles. If the universe didn't exist, then we wouldn't be having this conversation, so ostensibly it does. Now, [I]why[/I], [I]how[/I] the universe exists (as we know it) is a question that can literally have any number of answers - as many religions have existed and more, nobody has any real answer that can [I]truly[/I] explain anything. What you're trying to get at if if certain knowledge is knowable, is there [I]unknowable[/I] information - to which I'd argue [I]very much yes[/I] under the rules of this universe, HumanAbyss's example is a good explanation of this - that's why [I]if[/I] there was a reason the universe started existing, I don't think it's knowable; since our current understanding would suggest the rules that dictate our universe and its operation (time, space, physics) wouldn't have existed before our universe did. To break it down into a rubric: [img]https://s.gvid.me/s/2018/03/09/whyamimakingarubicforthis2.png[/img] With that visual aid, you'll see why I side on the "We don't know" side of things, since it's the most likely outcome - especially since I side heavily on the "unknowable" probability of things. [editline]9th March 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=sgman91;53190542]My answer isn't just "there's a reason," though. The answer is that the reason is a necessary 'something.' That's a very specific kind of reason. It limits the possible solutions down quite a bit because essentially everything we know about is contingent, and not necessary. If you can postulate some other kind of thing, please do, but I don't see how any contingent thing could work. Something contingent would need a explanation for why it's that way instead of some other way.[/QUOTE] The answer isn't necessarily "Something." the universe could have spontaneously existed with the rules it has, maybe something outside of the universe's rules (such as cause and effect) created it. Positing anything other than "I don't know" is making a positive statement, and something I can't get behind. Furthermore, I'd say knowledge can be unknowable, and if there was unknowable knowledge, it'd be what existed before our universe existed.