Free will, freedom from what?

[Fairy]

Well the simplest explanation is again that the observable universe is a Goldilocks zone, and outside of it there's more anti-matter than matter.

Yes that could well be the case.

I can’t help wonder though why it seems to be missing here in the Goldilocks-zone.

Maybe it’s just pure coincidence that life was able to spawn here in the observable place because of the lack of anti matter.

Probably because we are here, and 'something' is here with us or in us, so the rest of the universe has to be arranged in a way that makes humans possible.

Probably the biggest question of philosophy is what that 'something' could be.

Yes, that’s the million billion dollar question isn’t it, that so far has never been answered. But I’m sure we will think of something. Maybe a unicorn.

[Belinda]

Absolute freedom from nature is superstition. Some individuals are relatively freer than others.

[bahman]

Then you must suppose the "stuff" was eternal.

No, it does not mean that.

Then something caused the "stuff" to exist.

No, the stuff simply existed at the beginning of time and not before. It then turned into all sorts of things that we know.

[Immanuel Can]

No, it does not mean that.

Then something caused the "stuff" to exist.

No, the stuff simply existed at the beginning of time and not before.

I can't imagine what you mean by this phrase "the beginning of time." You seem to have some idea that reality can just "pop" into existence for no reason, without any cause. So if you say "no," then maybe you'll need to provide at least one example to show that it's possible for things to "pop" into existence uncaused.

As for time itself, I think you'll find that time is an interval. That means, it's not "stuff." It's a property, or attribution, not an object. It's essentially the interval it takes to traverse the gap between (at least two) points, either in space or in a process of some kind. And if that's right, then time itself cannot "begin" until the stuff already has. There's certainly no "at", no point-of-beginning at which time exists without matter existing. For there would be no interval for it to define.

What you've really given, therefore, is a non-explanation of anything. Essentially, you've said, "the stuff just happens." But if you believe that, you'll need to show us that it's possible.

[bahman]

Then something caused the "stuff" to exist.

No, the stuff simply existed at the beginning of time and not before.

I can't imagine what you mean by this phrase "the beginning of time."

Just trace back the events. You reach a point where things started. That point is the beginning of the time.

You seem to have some idea that reality can just "pop" into existence for no reason, without any cause.

I didn't say that! I just say that the stuff existed at the beginning of time.

So if you say "no," then maybe you'll need to provide at least one example to show that it's possible for things to "pop" into existence uncaused.

I don't need to because I didn't claim so.

As for time itself, I think you'll find that time is an interval. That means, it's not "stuff." It's a property, or attribution, not an object. It's essentially the interval it takes to traverse the gap between (at least two) points, either in space or in a process of some kind. And if that's right, then time itself cannot "begin" until the stuff already has. There's certainly no "at", no point-of-beginning at which time exists without matter existing. For there would be no interval for it to define.

I am not going to discuss whether time is a substance or not in this thread since it is off-topic.

What you've really given, therefore, is a non-explanation of anything. Essentially, you've said, "the stuff just happens." But if you believe that, you'll need to show us that it's possible.

I didn't say that stuff just happened. I said that the stuff simply existed at the beginning of time.

[Immanuel Can]

I didn't say that! I just say that the stuff existed at the beginning of time.

What you essentially said is that the stuff -- which was not eternal, you say -- popped into existence, and it happened at some point IN time that you call "the beginning of time." I'm just wanting you to show how that's even possible.

As for time itself, I think you'll find that time is an interval. That means, it's not "stuff." It's a property, or attribution, not an object. It's essentially the interval it takes to traverse the gap between (at least two) points, either in space or in a process of some kind. And if that's right, then time itself cannot "begin" until the stuff already has. There's certainly no "at", no point-of-beginning at which time exists without matter existing. For there would be no interval for it to define.

I am not going to discuss whether time is a substance or not in this thread since it is off-topic.

Actually, it's not. You were the one who claimed that "time" had a "beginning." Since it was part of your explanation, I'm simply asking what you mean by that...and so far, you're unable to say, it seems.

But I kind of knew that. Its obvious to me (and I say this without trying to be insulting, as a matter of fact not feeling) you don't seem to have any idea what you're saying.

But hey, prove me wrong about that. Just give me one example to show that what you claim can actually happen.

[bahman]

I didn't say that! I just say that the stuff existed at the beginning of time.

What you essentially said is that the stuff -- which was not eternal, you say -- popped into existence, and it happened at some point IN time that you call "the beginning of time." I'm just wanting you to show how that's even possible.

I didn't say that it popped into existence. I simply said that it existed at the beginning of time.

As for time itself, I think you'll find that time is an interval. That means, it's not "stuff." It's a property, or attribution, not an object. It's essentially the interval it takes to traverse the gap between (at least two) points, either in space or in a process of some kind. And if that's right, then time itself cannot "begin" until the stuff already has. There's certainly no "at", no point-of-beginning at which time exists without matter existing. For there would be no interval for it to define.

I am not going to discuss whether time is a substance or not in this thread since it is off-topic.

Actually, it's not. You were the one who claimed that "time" had a "beginning." Since it was part of your explanation, I'm simply asking what you mean by that...and so far, you're unable to say, it seems.

But I kind of knew that. Its obvious to me (and I say this without trying to be insulting, as a matter of fact not feeling) you don't seem to have any idea what you're saying.

But hey, prove me wrong about that. Just give me one example to show that what you claim can actually happen.

Time is a component of spacetime. We know that spacetime bends. The justifications are gravitational lens and gravitational wave.

[Immanuel Can]

I didn't say that! I just say that the stuff existed at the beginning of time.

What you essentially said is that the stuff -- which was not eternal, you say -- popped into existence, and it happened at some point IN time that you call "the beginning of time." I'm just wanting you to show how that's even possible.

I didn't say that it popped into existence. I simply said that it existed at the beginning of time.

"It simply existed," but it "is not eternal." Explain that.

Give an example. Not somebody else's website that you don't understand...an actual example. What is there, that you find coming into being this way?

[Atla]

Maybe we should tell this self-proclaimed master of science that there has been a little update since Newton's picture of absolute time.

Why are many people on philosophy forums stuck in the 18th century anyway?

[bahman]

What you essentially said is that the stuff -- which was not eternal, you say -- popped into existence, and it happened at some point IN time that you call "the beginning of time." I'm just wanting you to show how that's even possible.

I didn't say that it popped into existence. I simply said that it existed at the beginning of time.

"It simply existed," but it "is not eternal." Explain that.

We know that the stuff could not be eternal because of the second law of thermodynamics. So there was a beginning of time. There are two options here: (1) The stuff didn't exist at the beginning of time and then it was caused and (2) The stuff simply existed at the beginning of time. I am simply claiming that (2) cannot be ruled out! Therefore, one cannot conclude that the stuff was caused.

[Immanuel Can]

I didn't say that it popped into existence. I simply said that it existed at the beginning of time.

"It simply existed," but it "is not eternal." Explain that.

We know that the stuff could not be eternal because of the second law of thermodynamics. So there was a beginning of time.

Yes, we agree on that. But what "just existed," uncaused, and also, according to you "not eternal" at that time, that was also capable of causing a universe to exist?

I'm still waiting for that example, by the way.

[bahman]

"It simply existed," but it "is not eternal." Explain that.

We know that the stuff could not be eternal because of the second law of thermodynamics. So there was a beginning of time.

Yes, we agree on that. But what "just existed," uncaused, and also, according to you "not eternal" at that time, that was also capable of causing a universe to exist?

Just hot and very dense stuff.

I'm still waiting for that example, by the way.

Just trace back the events. If you go back long enough you reach the beginning of time. I am claiming that there was stuff at the beginning of time. One could claim that there was not and it then was caused by an agent called God. All I am saying is that you cannot conclude the second is the only claim unless you exclude the first claim.

[Atla]

Also, funny that the universe isn't allowed to be eternal, but this 'God' bloke is.

[Immanuel Can]

We know that the stuff could not be eternal because of the second law of thermodynamics. So there was a beginning of time.

Yes, we agree on that. But what "just existed," uncaused, and also, according to you "not eternal" at that time, that was also capable of causing a universe to exist?

Just hot and very dense stuff.

"Stuff"? And it both "existed in the beginning," and "was not eternal."

An example, please. If that's how things happened, it shouldn't have only happened once, one would think.

Am I wasting my time? Do you actually have any idea what you're talking about?

[bahman]

Yes, we agree on that. But what "just existed," uncaused, and also, according to you "not eternal" at that time, that was also capable of causing a universe to exist?

Just hot and very dense stuff.

"Stuff"? And it both "existed in the beginning," and "was not eternal."

An example, please. If that's how things happened, it shouldn't have only happened once, one would think.

Am I wasting my time? Do you actually have any idea what you're talking about?

I already explained to you: "Just trace back the events. If you go back long enough you reach the beginning of time. I am claiming that there was stuff at the beginning of time. One could claim that there was not and it then was caused by an agent called God. All I am saying is that you cannot conclude the second is the only claim unless you exclude the first claim". Do you understand what I am trying to say here?