Nothing to somthing is logically impossible

[bahman]

Maybe.
But you cannot get this from logic, as it is an empirical or epistemological question requiring an impossible observation.

What maybe refers to?

Your conclusion is a maybe.

But my conclusion follows from the three premises. Do you have any objection to the three premises?

[Sculptor]

What maybe refers to?

Your conclusion is a maybe.

But my conclusion follows from the three premises. Do you have any objection to the three premises?

Of course. Can't you read?

[bahman]

Your conclusion is a maybe.

But my conclusion follows from the three premises. Do you have any objection to the three premises?

Of course. Can't you read?

Of course, spacetime can exist without matter. Spacetime is fundamental.

[Sculptor]

But my conclusion follows from the three premises. Do you have any objection to the three premises?

Of course. Can't you read?

Of course, spacetime can exist without matter. Spacetime is fundamental.

Prove it!

[bahman]

Of course. Can't you read?

Of course, spacetime can exist without matter. Spacetime is fundamental.

Prove it!

By spacetime is fundamental I mean that it simply exists, it cannot come into existence and cannot be caused. To show that assume the otherwise. This means that spacetime did not exist and then exists. This is however a change and for that you need spacetime. This leads to the infinite regress. The infinite regress is logically impossible. Therefore, the assumption is wrong. In fact, we need spacetime to allow appearing of matter whether it is caused or simply pops into existence. So spacetime exists first and then other things come into existence. Why this is true? We know that nothing to something is a change and for that you need spacetime.

[Sculptor]

Of course, spacetime can exist without matter. Spacetime is fundamental.

Prove it!

By spacetime is fundamental I mean that it simply exists, it cannot come into existence and cannot be caused. To show that assume the otherwise. This means that spacetime did not exist and then exists. This is however a change and for that you need spacetime. This leads to the infinite regress. The infinite regress is logically impossible. Therefore, the assumption is wrong. In fact, we need spacetime to allow appearing of matter whether it is caused or simply pops into existence. So spacetime exists first and then other things come into existence. Why this is true? We know that nothing to something is a change and for that you need spacetime.

THis is just an assertion

[bahman]

Prove it!

By spacetime is fundamental I mean that it simply exists, it cannot come into existence and cannot be caused. To show that assume the otherwise. This means that spacetime did not exist and then exists. This is however a change and for that you need spacetime. This leads to the infinite regress. The infinite regress is logically impossible. Therefore, the assumption is wrong. In fact, we need spacetime to allow appearing of matter whether it is caused or simply pops into existence. So spacetime exists first and then other things come into existence. Why this is true? We know that nothing to something is a change and for that you need spacetime.

THis is just an assertion

You are questioning the third premise. Is there time in nothing?

[Age]

It is about the second law of thermodynamics. This law says that the entropy is constantly increasing.

But the so-called 'second law of thermodynamics' here only applies to 'things' within the Universe. That so-called 'law' does not apply to the 'Thing', called the Universe, Itself. See, the so-called 'second law of thermodynamics' does not apply to the fundamental components of the Universe, Itself, because they cannot be created, nor destroyed.

The laws apply to the things within the universe. The thing within the universe makes the universe.

So 'now' you are saying and claiming that actually energy can be created and destroyed.

And, what about the Thing, the Universe, Itself, how and why can It be, supposedly, created and destroyed?

Also, if you, again, only answer some questions, and not all of them, you are just showing and proving where and how your views here are Wrong and Incorrect.

The ultimate state of the universe is when the energy is distributed equally so no further process is possible as a result of equal distribution of energy, that is heat death.

So, you are here 'now' saying and/or suggesting that, actually, 'energy' can be created, and destroyed, correct?

No, I didn't say that.

Yes you are. Or, if you are not, then you are saying and claiming that actually the Universe is eternal.

So, which one do you want to go with 'this time'?

Also, is the claimed 'equal distribution of energy' throughout all of the whole Universe, Itself, an already proved Fact that 'this' will happen absolutely for sure without absolutely any doubt at all?

Yes.

Where is this proof, exactly, and who is/are the one/s who claim to know 'the future', irrefutably?

Or, is this just another presumption or belief of some of you human beings, only?

No.

So, for the one/s who want to claim that they know, absolutely, what will happen, how come you do not have a clue as to what did happen?

The process in the current state is possible as a result of the energy not being distributed equally in space.

So, how and when did this 'current' state begin, exactly?

From the beginning to now and to the future but not very long long time in future.

Not answering both questions here shows and proves where and why you are Wrong and Incorrect here.

When was the so-called 'beginning', exactly?

How could a so-called 'beginning' have occurred, especially, when it is you "bahman" who keep concluding and asserting that 'nothing to something, thus a 'beginning', is logically impossible'?

What do you mean? I know what infinite regress is.

Well you have provided two different definitions so far. So, are you going to provide more?

If yes, then how many, and what are they, exactly?

If no, then why not? And, which one of the two that you have provided so far do 'we' 'have to' agree with, and accept?

Also, let 'us' all not forget that what 'your' own personal definition of the term or phrase 'infinite regress' is here "bahman" absolutely no one has to nor will necessarily agree with and accept anyway.

No, I defined one definition so far.

Which does not necessarily align with what 'infinite regress' means and refers to, exactly.

Really "bahman" you are going to have to learn and understand that if your views are not logically possible, then there must be something Wrong in and with them somewhere. So, instead of continually trying to fight and argue for what you just 'currently' believe is true I suggest you just become more OPEN and find out how, where, and why your 'current' views are not Correct.

But, as always, please feel absolutely free to choose to do whatever you want and/or feel like here.

[Age]

I know what time is but it is off-topic.

So, you want to make your so-called 'arguments' around what 'time' is, or base your so-called 'arguments' on what 'time' is, but find discussing what 'time' is, exactly, here is 'now' off-topic.

Ok, time is a substance that allows change.

A 'substance' of 'what', exactly?

And, let 'us' not forget that 'you' also claim that 'mind' is 'a substance', as well, that is; when you get 'stuck' and cannot prove your 'current' views or beliefs actually True.

By assuming any time I mean any time that you consider.

Well considering that a 'time' I consider HERE, is NOW, which is eternal, then what you have been claiming has just fallen to pieces and/or by the wayside, as some might say here, NOW.

Now is a point and it is not eternal.

Look "bahman", can you see how you just assert some 'thing', that 'thing' being just what you 'current'y believe is true, but, and exactly like what I will do now, when you are questioned over your asserted belief, you are not able to actual prove how the asserted belief is actually True.

Watch and see what happens HERE-NOW. "bahman" what proof do you have that 'NOW' is not eternal?

Yes.


Sure, but that does not mean that the universe has eternally existed.

But, the Universe, Itself, could not exist in any other way. And, this is irrefutable.

Yes, the universe has a beginning so it didn't exist eternally in the past.

So, in one sentence you say and claim that, 'Nothing to something is logically impossible', and in another sentence you say and claim that, 'The Universe (Everything) did begin'. Which obviously means that 'It' came from nothing.

So,

1. Either you are absolutely blind to this very obvious self-refuting contradiction here.

2. you are aware of this very obvious self-refuting contradiction but your 'current' beliefs will just not allow you to admit this to others.

Either explain how and why this blatantly obvious self-refuting contradiction exists and how it can be overcome, or just give up "bahman".

[Age]

Logic has to do with it. I don't understand what you are trying to say with the rest.


So what?

You did not preent any logical argument

Of course, I did.

No you did not.

Or, if you did, then you have not yet be able to explain how you did in any logical way.

It is not my fault if you don't understand it.

It is not our fault you cannot recognize and see how it is Truly illogical to say, claim, and try to argue that, 'Nothing to something is logically impossible', but 'something (the Universe) from nothing actually logically happened'.

Or, are you saying that it is our fault that you cannot understand the self-refuting contradiction here?

[Age]

Of course, I did. It is not my fault if you don't understand it.

You do not understand the difference between logic, reason and evidence.
You presented no actual logic.

Logical arguments are formal.
That means they have a form.
WHat you did was just present an assertion.
A logical argument tyically has a premise or collection of premises and then makes a NECESESARY conclusion based on the validity of those premises.
For example.

Socrates is a man
All men are mortal
therefore Socrates is mortal.

I've told you all this before but you seem to have forgetten it.

Ok, I can make a syllogism if that is what you want:

P1) Time is needed for any change
P2) Nothing to something is a change
P3) There is no time in nothing
C) Therefore, nothing to something is logically impossible (From P1-P3)

Your three so-called 'premises' here are not valid.

As you have yet proved any of them True.

But, if you believe you can, then you would have to do this first.

and, if you did prove any or all of them True, then your conclusion here would not be True, obviously.

[Age]

Ok, I can make a syllogism if that is what you want:

P1) Time is needed for any change
P2) Nothing to something is a change
P3) There is no time in nothing
C) Therefore, nothing to something is logically impossible (From P1-P3)

That is better.
What do you conclude?
Either the universe does not exist as it is thought to exist by science or one or more of your premises is incorrect.

The universe of course exist,

Well you have gotten agreement with everyone on one thing here anyway.

it was either caused or simply existed at the beginning of time or it comes into existence in the presence of spacetime.

Or, there is another explanation. Which, by the way, cannot be refuted and thus is actually what is actually True, Right, Accurate, and Correct.

Now, the Universe was not caused, by something else, obviously. This stands alone by definition itself.

There was no beginning of 'time', and not with your definition of 'time' nor with the other definitions of 'time', which other people use.

How do you define the word 'spacetime' "bahman"? For if you are going to present claims here, then surely you have some definition for the words that you use, right?

Please note that spacetime is fundamental

What is 'spacetime' meant to be fundamental in regards to or for exactly?

Some people like "veritas aequitas", for example, say and claim that a human being is 'fundamental' also, for the Universe to exist, but there is absolutely no necessity, for example, that a human being has to exist.

Which means that what you just say, claim, and assert 'is fundamental' may well have no actual bearing nor necessity 'to exist' itself.

so it cannot be created or begin to exist since that leads to an infinite regress.

So, to "bahman" 'now':

'spacetime' is eternal, because if it began, then that leads to an infinite regress.

The Universe began, because if It is eternal, then that leads to an infinite regress.

Need I say or show anymore here?

[Age]

What maybe refers to?

Your conclusion is a maybe.

But my conclusion follows from the three premises. Do you have any objection to the three premises?

Yes, very much so.

And, also to me your conclusion does not logically follow from your own three premises at all.

[Age]

But my conclusion follows from the three premises. Do you have any objection to the three premises?

Of course. Can't you read?

Of course, spacetime can exist without matter. Spacetime is fundamental.

1. Supposedly 'fundamental' to 'what', exactly?

2. What is 'spacetime', exactly, which can supposedly exist without matter?

3. Of being without matter implies 'nothing', but you also claim that, 'nothing to something is logically impossible', also, which is obviosly very contradictory.

4. What is 'it', exactly, that you are trying to claim is true here and which you appear so desperate to want to fight and argue for here?

[Age]

Of course, spacetime can exist without matter. Spacetime is fundamental.

Prove it!

By spacetime is fundamental I mean that it simply exists,

So, cats and zebras are 'fundamental' also, well to "bahman" anyway.

it cannot come into existence and cannot be caused.

Why not?

To you, the Universe simply exists, and therefore is also so-called 'fundamental' here, but yet you say and claim that the Universe did come into existence and/or was caused. So, why cannot all of the other so-called 'fundamental' things also not come into existence and/or be caused?

To show that assume the otherwise. This means that spacetime did not exist and then exists.

What, like also assuming that the Universe, Itself, did not exist, and then existed?

This is however a change and for that you need spacetime.

So, your so-called 'argument' here now stands on;

For the Universe, itself, change is needed, but because i, "bahman", believe that Universe began to exist and believe that nothing to something is impossible, then the only way around this is to just try to say and claim that there must be something else always eternally existing, or in other words just 'simply exist'. Oh, i, "bahman", now know what to do i will introduce and bring up the words 'spacetime', as though i know what i am talking about, and i will just say and claim that 'spacetime' is 'fundamental', then 'the others' will think that i really do know what i am talking about.

And, if anyone questions or challenges me on this i will just say that 'spacetime' has always existed, then this should keep them off 'my back', and hopefully, in some way, will back up and support my 'currently' held beliefs and presumptions.

This leads to the infinite regress.

So, now because "bahman" says and claims that if 'spacetime' came to exist, then this is a so-called infinite regression.

But, let 'us' not forget that when "bahman" says and claims that the Universe came to exist, then this is not a so-called infinite regression.

The infinite regress is logically impossible.

Only because of the way you are looking at, and seeing, things here.

Thus, change the way you look at, and see, things, into the Right and Correct way, and then what you are looking at, and seeing, is the one and only True perspective of things and how they actually and irrefutably are, exactly.

Therefore, the assumption is wrong. In fact, we need spacetime to allow appearing of matter whether it is caused or simply pops into existence.

So, instead of just saying and claiming, 'we need the Universe to allow the appearing of matter whether it is caused or simply pops into existence', "bahman" has replaced the words 'the Universe' with the words 'spacetime' solely and only because "bahman" 'currently' believes that the Universe began, and/or is expanding.

Which, to say, "bahman's" example here has probably been one of the best examples of how these people, back then, would try to say just about absolutely any thing in the hope that these truly made up new words and definitions would somehow possibly 'justify' and back up and support their 'presently' held onto very strong beliefs and presumptions.

So spacetime exists first and then other things come into existence. Why this is true? We know that nothing to something is a change and for that you need spacetime.
[/quote]