Thinking Straight About Curved Space

[Obvious Leo]

Time is a derivative of space and only 'appears' real to our local inability to see all of totality objectively.

Making this statement in the form of a divine fiat does not enhance its truth value. It contradicts every science except for a very narrow interpretation of physics which means that the burden of proof lies with you as the claimant. Kindly present this proof.

. You also propose "laws" (though you simultaneously deny they are such) such as this 'time' and causation.

They are NOT laws. They are metaphysical first principles from which our epistemic understanding of "laws" derive. I call the universal doctrine of causality a "meta-law" because the asymmetrical relationship between time and gravity ensures that it is the only "law" which nature needs. When you speak of time I speak of gravity and time as a continuum and I insist that you maintain this usage when you refer to my philosophy. The fractal dimension in which the universe exists is one where time and gravity are simply two different expressions of the same thing.

But what is your own rationality unless you defer to a Deistic entity that commands 'time', 'causation', and perhaps, 'order'?

This is utter bullshit and it's utter Newtonian bullshit to boot. I'm claiming the exact opposite because my model in non-Newtonian. Non-linear dynamic systems are self-organising and thus impose order from within. They EVOLVE from the simple to the complex where Newtonian systems DEVOLVE from the complex to the simple. Take a look around you, Scott, and tell me which of these trajectories describes the history of the universe for the past 13.8 billion years. My universe is predicated on the notion of IMMANENT cause whereas Newton assumed a universe predicated on the notion of TRANSCENDENT cause. Physics cannot escape this assumption without denying the physicality of the Cartesian space. I'm saying that Leibniz was fucking RIGHT, a conclusion now fully endorsed by the modern sciences of the psychology of perception as well by cognitive neuroscience. Our universe is a Spinozan entity and NOT a Newtonian one, a truth which Einstein instinctively knew all along and one which Poincare was adamant about.

The ones that do not are never able to be interpreted as being 'consistent' simply because they are 'inconsistent'.

All you're saying is that attempting to derive meaning from a counter-factual event is a fatuous exercise in metaphysical futility. Have a chocolate, son, because you've got something right.

To think otherwise is to digress into the pre-Darwinian and religious beliefs about causation that reduces to fatalism.

This is exactly the worm in the apple of the Newtonian model which mine is able to refute. Darwinian evolution is riddled with conceptual flaws but, as with physics, it is unnecessary to chuck out the baby with the bathwater. Darwin at least managed to show us the true nature of determinism because determinism is CHAOTIC, not linear. It is you, not I, who is advocating for a creationist paradigm.

[Scott Mayers]

Time is a derivative of space and only 'appears' real [due] to our local inability to see all of totality objectively.

Making this statement in the form of a divine fiat does not enhance its truth value. It contradicts every science except for a very narrow interpretation of physics which means that the burden of proof lies with you as the claimant. Kindly present this proof.

That is, time is a fourth dimensional construct and it is YOU, not me, who is the one in the minority on this factor.

. You also propose "laws" (though you simultaneously deny they are such) such as this 'time' and causation.

They are NOT laws. They are metaphysical first principles from which our epistemic understanding of "laws" derive. I call the universal doctrine of causality a "meta-law" because the asymmetrical relationship between time and gravity ensures that it is the only "law" which nature needs. When you speak of time I speak of gravity and time as a continuum and I insist that you maintain this usage when you refer to my philosophy. The fractal dimension in which the universe exists is one where time and gravity are simply two different expressions of the same thing.

Your attempting to make a distinction without a difference here. What any "meta-laws" are is merely a relative term meant to imply that one set of laws of one language is constructed using another prior to it. They are still laws.

You still actually make things worse by pre-defining time as an ultimate metaphysical construct because logically time belongs to the class of "measures of change" generically which can only follow, not precede, simpler changes of things in space. Thus 'time' is a special type of change. And for us, we only interpret this by comparing different positions of things that change in space with some standard unit measure. To me you are trying to define time as a specific type of verb that initiates the general function of a sentence. While not irrational from a historical perspective of language, this mistakes the effect for the cause. We may have begun language by merely using vocalizations that command (as an action), but this always had at least some implicit subject and/or object in mind.

But what is your own rationality unless you defer to a Deistic entity that commands 'time', 'causation', and perhaps, 'order'?

This is utter bullshit and it's utter Newtonian bullshit to boot. I'm claiming the exact opposite because my model in non-Newtonian. Non-linear dynamic systems are self-organising and thus impose order from within. They EVOLVE from the simple to the complex where Newtonian systems DEVOLVE from the complex to the simple. Take a look around you, Scott, and tell me which of these trajectories describes the history of the universe for the past 13.8 billion years. My universe is predicated on the notion of IMMANENT cause whereas Newton assumed a universe predicated on the notion of TRANSCENDENT cause. Physics cannot escape this assumption without denying the physicality of the Cartesian space. I'm saying that Leibniz was fucking RIGHT, a conclusion now fully endorsed by the modern sciences of the psychology of perception as well by cognitive neuroscience. Our universe is a Spinozan entity and NOT a Newtonian one, a truth which Einstein instinctively knew all along and one which Poincare was adamant about.

And these are your fiat opinions here without clarification. What are you intending by trying to insult things as "Newtonian" vs "non-Newtonian"? All that distinguished Newton from latter efforts from my understanding relates to the fact that Newton didn't use time as a fourth dimension (or other extended dimensions) AND was unaware of the need to add a factor that prevented anything going faster than the speed of light. Your claims of Newton seem to relate to his non-physical beliefs apart from what we actually credit him for. He was prized for the mechanics of physics, not for his religious views. But I'm also confused at your choice of words above too. "Immanent" refers to a divinity that manifests reality in some way, something to which Newton DID believe in. "Transcendence" is a causal association between something understood to something less understood intuitively. This too was also a term used to describe existence of a god (as in another dimension or realm). I'm unsure how these relate to our discussion.

To think otherwise is to digress into the pre-Darwinian and religious beliefs about causation that reduces to fatalism.

This is exactly the worm in the apple of the Newtonian model which mine is able to refute. Darwinian evolution is riddled with conceptual flaws but, as with physics, it is unnecessary to chuck out the baby with the bathwater. Darwin at least managed to show us the true nature of determinism because determinism is CHAOTIC, not linear. It is you, not I, who is advocating for a creationist paradigm.

?? What you seem to define as 'chaotic', 'linear', and 'determined' are more about your preference to make another set of distinctions that either don't differ from accepting indeterminacy as a coexisting function of reality or that you interpret them unusually. While I believe that I know what you are thinking, terms like "chaos" and "linear" are more of modern colloquial trademark terms that lack clarity in this context. Using "chaos" throws me off as I understand its etymological context and other history to refer to anything lacking order. It is where the term "gas" comes from though I believe it originally referred to the fluidity of both liquids and gases. In context to "Chaos Theory", this was intended to point out how 'randomness' (a state of apparent disorder) actually has order after all!! I don't approve of the language of this theory as it seems to be making something novel out of what is simply an unusual way to try to argue that we can have our cake and eat it too within one given universe. That is, it is like my own interpretation of multiple worlds yet it pretends that their is still one unique outcome with serious confusion. "Chaos" is a good description of this confused state.

The 'butterfly' effect originally intended to describe that given INITIAL conditions (predetermined by whatever unstated), then what follows is still unique but dependent upon that initial state. ????What???? Obviously we cannot allow any actual variability to whether a butterfly is going to affect some big change in the long run. This is because unless at some point before the butterfly flaps its wings that it actually had an indeterminate possibility (free will to flap or not). The only INITIAL conditions that therefore rationally count in your interpretation of a UNIverse, requires that this initial state only occurred once at the beginning of time and your totality being perfectly unique (your universe). But only if at this original beginning did it have the capacity to have variable options (like flapping a wing), this indeterminate state requires an infinite possible worlds from that point. Yet you deny this. So therefore such initial conditions actually don't exist as it was inevitable even if apparently only possible. This theory is thus not anything meaningfully distinct from just begging a linear deterministic reality....it only 'appears' indeterministic. You have your cake and eat it to by begging that chaos assures non-linear reality that is completely either multiverses (if sincere) or non-sense with regards to the initial conditions like a Deistic god who has the power to choose on or multiple choices when it began the universe (initial state of conditional 'free will').

My point on Darwin was that the options exist as real for any species to persist by possible different worlds (from each point in time) but only appear in a given world from its initial state if at that or equal initial states allowing it can actually have real options. Otherwise, such determinism reduces to fate. Our universe is 'contingently' deterministic. But this contingency means that it really could truly have been possible to be something else. This requires a set of worlds (even if witlessness from our direct experience) to exist, even if only in the 'mind' of a god or, as I prefer, the infinity of what could be contained in nothingness itself.

[Obvious Leo]

That is, time is a fourth dimensional construct and it is YOU, not me, who is the one in the minority on this factor.

This is a transparently false statement and reflects nothing more than the sheer arrogance of the non-science that is physics. Physics is the only science which makes such a claim and NONE of the other sciences model time in this way. Furthermore this patently ridiculous definition of time contradicts every major philosophy of both east and west since the pre-Socratics. In addition to this inescapable fact modelling time in this way leads to models of the universe which make no fucking sense, so physics is making its claim from a very shaky position. By what convoluted perversion of logic does this make mine a minority position? Such hubris is breathtaking.

Your attempting to make a distinction without a difference here. What any "meta-laws" are is merely a relative term meant to imply that one set of laws of one language is constructed using another prior to it. They are still laws.

This is not true. The meta-law of causality is simply a self-organising principle, since it is well known that chaotically determined systems are beholden to no physical laws external to themselves. They evolve purely through the principle of immanent cause. Eradicating the notion of objective "laws" and replacing them with the notion of subjective interpretations of a self-organising principle of evolution is a resolution of the "observer problem", which was shoved into the too hard basket after the 1927 Solvay conference and never resurrected.

You still actually make things worse by pre-defining time as an ultimate metaphysical construct because logically time belongs to the class of "measures of change" generically which can only follow, not precede, simpler changes of things in space. Thus 'time' is a special type of change.

How dare you criticise my philosophy without first reading it and then presume to explain its contents to me, you arrogant piece of shit. Time and change are the same thing.

And these are your fiat opinions here without clarification. What are you intending by trying to insult things as "Newtonian" vs "non-Newtonian"? All that distinguished Newton from latter efforts from my understanding relates to the fact that Newton didn't use time as a fourth dimension (or other extended dimensions) AND was unaware of the need to add a factor that prevented anything going faster than the speed of light. Your claims of Newton seem to relate to his non-physical beliefs apart from what we actually credit him for. He was prized for the mechanics of physics, not for his religious views. But I'm also confused at your choice of words above too. "Immanent" refers to a divinity that manifests reality in some way, something to which Newton DID believe in. "Transcendence" is a causal association between something understood to something less understood intuitively. This too was also a term used to describe existence of a god (as in another dimension or realm). I'm unsure how these relate to our discussion.

You simply don't have the grounding in metaphysics to be attempting such an argument. Newtonian determinism is defined as transcendent because it is goal-directed whereas non Newtonian determinism is not. It's as simple as that. Physics is entirely Newtonian because it claims that the events of the universe have been pre-determined since the dawn of time. QM cannot rescue it from this position with its absurd inferences of randomness at the subatomic scale because this is putting the cart before the horse. Unpredictability is a fundamental property of chaotic motion and this has nothing to do with randomness. This is to do with the causal complexity of the entire system and curiously Newton, of all people, understood this better than most modern physicists, even though he didn't include it in his modelling. The motion of every single physical entity in the universe affects the motion of every other and it doesn't matter a fuck whether the entity is a neutrino or a super-cluster of galaxies. THIS IS A FACT and this is non-Newtonian determinism. Newton was simply unable to model this with his classical mathematical tools and he contrived an ingenious solution to his problem by simply calculating a mathematical constant from observation and bunging it into his equations where needed. This was such a clever trick that physicists have been doing it ever since and physics now has well over a hundred such constants which are simply appended to the models by hand and adjusted as required. Are you going to try and tell me that this is science? This is simply linearising the non-linear. This is a "science of the gaps", a mathematical voodoo which patches the models of physics together with sticky tape and string. Back in Plato's day the whole fucking lot of them would have been sold into slavery for cheating.

There's no such thing as a physical constant in nature. These are observer constructs inserted by hand to allow a chaotically determined system to be modelled with Newton's mathematics. Einstein conceded not long before he died that he'd been chasing a rainbow looking for a unification model within the spacetime paradigm which he had always known to be false. However it wasn't until his life in science was over that he eventually realised that such a unification model would never be achievable with Newton's mathematical tools. He was right, as Poincare could have told him half a century earlier. Chaotically determined systems can only be modelled by using the tools of fractal geometry and it is with these tools and not Newton's that the next major breakthrough in physics will be achieved.

?? What you seem to define as 'chaotic', 'linear', and 'determined' are more about your preference to make another set of distinctions that either don't differ from accepting indeterminacy as a coexisting function of reality or that you interpret them unusually.

Bullshit, Scott, these are not arbitrary definitions of my own devising but well-established and completely uncontroversial principles of mathematical philosophy. Unpredictability and indeterminacy are simply NOT synonymous constructs and to suggest that they are is simply WRONG. There is a vast compendium of literature on non-linear dynamic systems theory because it is a mature science with a rigorous methodology. It is used to model every modern science except physics because to every science except physics it is unremarkable that the future is unknowable. Physics is the last Newtonian science left, Scott, but not for very much longer because it's fucking WRONG. The only law in nature is that shit happens and that's the only law we need to understand in order to be able to explain every observed phenomenon in the universe, from the Planck scale up to the galactic scale.

You don't understand the butterfly effect at all and you don't understand evolution anywhere near well enough to comment on it. I have no interest in arguing these questions with you because you simply don't have the grounding in the subject. I've spent many years studying it and yet I would only lay claim to a general overview myself. However I know of no physicists who know anything at all about dissipative structures. I've no doubt that such people exist but I've never seen dissipative structures spoken of in the naturally occurring systems of physics and yet every other naturally occurring system in nature can only be modelled as such. Physics is going to have to clamber its way out of Newton's Dark Ages and move in to the 21st century.

Lastly let me add this. I CAN PROVE THIS.

[Scott Mayers]

That is, time is a fourth dimensional construct and it is YOU, not me, who is the one in the minority on this factor.

This is a transparently false statement and reflects nothing more than the sheer arrogance of the non-science that is physics. Physics is the only science which makes such a claim and NONE of the other sciences model time in this way. Furthermore this patently ridiculous definition of time contradicts every major philosophy of both east and west since the pre-Socratics. In addition to this inescapable fact modelling time in this way leads to models of the universe which make no fucking sense, so physics is making its claim from a very shaky position. By what convoluted perversion of logic does this make mine a minority position? Such hubris is breathtaking.

You already know that I at least believe you can attempt a reconstructed argument in your interpretation if you tweaked it by building a closed logical argument beginning with some meaning to 'time'. But this is NOT what physicists nor Mathematicians would do and is why I'm saying you're in the minority on this particular factor.

Given your presumption of "time", you have to give it meaning by at least defining it as a first (or zeroth) 'dimensional' construct and then provide a derivation of space and matter. This appears to be too conflicting since I'm not sure how you'd define 'time' with meaning up front without using matter and spaces to define it. But why you think that using the regular model has problems, I am confused about.

Your attempting to make a distinction without a difference here. What any "meta-laws" are is merely a relative term meant to imply that one set of laws of one language is constructed using another prior to it. They are still laws.

This is not true. The meta-law of causality is simply a self-organising principle, since it is well known that chaotically determined systems are beholden to no physical laws external to themselves. They evolve purely through the principle of immanent cause. Eradicating the notion of objective "laws" and replacing them with the notion of subjective interpretations of a self-organising principle of evolution is a resolution of the "observer problem", which was shoved into the too hard basket after the 1927 Solvay conference and never resurrected.

"Self-organizing" is a concept that I'm as unclear to your own interpretation. An "immanent" cause is precisely why I referred to Chaos theory as reducing to a form of Fatalism. I think fatalism at least has a better rationale than Chaos theory since I've pointed out how Chaos Theories initial states cannot mean anything if every point is allowed to be an equally valid initial point. You also don't seem to recognize that even Chaos Theory defines itself as 'dynamic' by default. It doesn't mean that states (like space or matter) do not exist.

You still actually make things worse by pre-defining time as an ultimate metaphysical construct because logically time belongs to the class of "measures of change" generically which can only follow, not precede, simpler changes of things in space. Thus 'time' is a special type of change.

How dare you criticise my philosophy without first reading it and then presume to explain its contents to me, you arrogant piece of shit. Time and change are the same thing.

I am sorry if my words hurt you as this is NOT my intent. I disagree to your interpretation of change and time as being equally exchangeable without recognizing that even distances between two points in a static model can be considered changes of place without confusing it with 'time'. It is up to you to demonstrate how beginning with only time how all space and matter follow. But again, how do you define 'time' is unclear. Can you define this without resorting to something like "the measure of change" without it being tautological? You can opt to assign it as a tautological assumption (an undefined postulate) but this lacks the closure that can be done assuming a point in Euclidean fashion with better agreement.

And these are your fiat opinions here without clarification. What are you intending by trying to insult things as "Newtonian" vs "non-Newtonian"? All that distinguished Newton from latter efforts from my understanding relates to the fact that Newton didn't use time as a fourth dimension (or other extended dimensions) AND was unaware of the need to add a factor that prevented anything going faster than the speed of light. Your claims of Newton seem to relate to his non-physical beliefs apart from what we actually credit him for. He was prized for the mechanics of physics, not for his religious views. But I'm also confused at your choice of words above too. "Immanent" refers to a divinity that manifests reality in some way, something to which Newton DID believe in. "Transcendence" is a causal association between something understood to something less understood intuitively. This too was also a term used to describe existence of a god (as in another dimension or realm). I'm unsure how these relate to our discussion.

You simply don't have the grounding in metaphysics to be attempting such an argument. Newtonian determinism is defined as transcendent because it is goal-directed whereas non Newtonian determinism is not. It's as simple as that. Physics is entirely Newtonian because it claims that the events of the universe have been pre-determined since the dawn of time. QM cannot rescue it from this position with its absurd inferences of randomness at the subatomic scale because this is putting the cart before the horse. Unpredictability is a fundamental property of chaotic motion and this has nothing to do with randomness. This is to do with the causal complexity of the entire system and curiously Newton, of all people, understood this better than most modern physicists, even though he didn't include it in his modelling. The motion of every single physical entity in the universe affects the motion of every other and it doesn't matter a fuck whether the entity is a neutrino or a super-cluster of galaxies. THIS IS A FACT and this is non-Newtonian determinism. Newton was simply unable to model this with his classical mathematical tools and he contrived an ingenious solution to his problem by simply calculating a mathematical constant from observation and bunging it into his equations where needed. This was such a clever trick that physicists have been doing it ever since and physics now has well over a hundred such constants which are simply appended to the models by hand and adjusted as required. Are you going to try and tell me that this is science? This is simply linearising the non-linear. This is a "science of the gaps", a mathematical voodoo which patches the models of physics together with sticky tape and string. Back in Plato's day the whole fucking lot of them would have been sold into slavery for cheating.

There's no such thing as a physical constant in nature. These are observer constructs inserted by hand to allow a chaotically determined system to be modelled with Newton's mathematics. Einstein conceded not long before he died that he'd been chasing a rainbow looking for a unification model within the spacetime paradigm which he had always known to be false. However it wasn't until his life in science was over that he eventually realised that such a unification model would never be achievable with Newton's mathematical tools. He was right, as Poincare could have told him half a century earlier. Chaotically determined systems can only be modelled by using the tools of fractal geometry and it is with these tools and not Newton's that the next major breakthrough in physics will be achieved.

I think your problem lies with the Cartesian geometry using a coordinate system of dimensions, not Newton. Perhaps you should address this rather than Newton. Newton only used the Cartesian geometry and assumed mass as existing without attempting to prove anything about the spaces at all.

?? What you seem to define as 'chaotic', 'linear', and 'determined' are more about your preference to make another set of distinctions that either don't differ from accepting indeterminacy as a coexisting function of reality or that you interpret them unusually.

Bullshit, Scott, these are not arbitrary definitions of my own devising but well-established and completely uncontroversial principles of mathematical philosophy. Unpredictability and indeterminacy are simply NOT synonymous constructs and to suggest that they are is simply WRONG. There is a vast compendium of literature on non-linear dynamic systems theory because it is a mature science with a rigorous methodology. It is used to model every modern science except physics because to every science except physics it is unremarkable that the future is unknowable. Physics is the last Newtonian science left, Scott, but not for very much longer because it's fucking WRONG. The only law in nature is that shit happens and that's the only law we need to understand in order to be able to explain every observed phenomenon in the universe, from the Planck scale up to the galactic scale.

You don't understand the butterfly effect at all and you don't understand evolution anywhere near well enough to comment on it. I have no interest in arguing these questions with you because you simply don't have the grounding in the subject. I've spent many years studying it and yet I would only lay claim to a general overview myself. However I know of no physicists who know anything at all about dissipative structures. I've no doubt that such people exist but I've never seen dissipative structures spoken of in the naturally occurring systems of physics and yet every other naturally occurring system in nature can only be modelled as such. Physics is going to have to clamber its way out of Newton's Dark Ages and move in to the 21st century.

Lastly let me add this. I CAN PROVE THIS.

You take an odd stance against physics. I DO understand the butterfly effect and am well versed in evolutionary theory.

Chaos Theory is still a mathematical construct of which you already deny is real. It is also a theory within math to which not everyone agrees. It tries to find a meaning to indeterminacy using determinate-only terminology but falters because it begs an initial condition as being allowed such indeterminacy. In a multiverse totality, this works because the non-linear factors are 'determined' by allowing for all possibilities everywhere. You pretend some meaning to a single universe that allows some initial state the power to have multiple options but once it 'chooses' is left to be determinate. What feature of this "immanence" (God?) has the force to pick from multiple options in the initial state? AND, if you also believe that each present moment is allowed to be an equally initial point, how does this not reduce to a multiverse with better clarity? In your interpretation, only if each point in time could ACTUALLY be repeated could you speak of what might have been had a butterfly NOT flapped its wings instead. You can't speak of these possible worlds (that might have been) AND simultaneously beg they are impossible too (because they contingently didn't happen).

[Obvious Leo]

Scott. Where did all this "Initial state" shit come. We're talking about two entirely different things. You're talking about a subsystem of the universe and I'm talking about the universe as a whole.

How the hell could the universe as a whole have an initial state? You're spouting creationist bollocks.

[Scott Mayers]

Scott. Where did all this "Initial state" shit come. We're talking about two entirely different things. You're talking about a subsystem of the universe and I'm talking about the universe as a whole.

How the hell could the universe as a whole have an initial state? You're spouting creationist bollocks.

From the Wikipedia page [Chaos Theory]:

Chaos theory is the field of study in mathematics that studies the behavior of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initialconditions—a response popularly referred to as the butterfly effect.[1] Small differences in initial conditions (such as those due to rounding errors in numerical computation) yield widely diverging outcomes for such dynamical systems, rendering long-term prediction impossible in general.[2]

It is you who needs to do some homework on what Chaos Theory is, not me. Initial states ARE the predefining points to which non-linear options exist ONLY!! That is, at that point, if we allow options (multiple universal possibilities) but then restrict ourselves to one of them at a time, each line of the set of multiple lines (non-linear) still remain linear (determinate) from each possibility upon a decision at that point! It begs that a unique decider has to pick one of the multiple options from the potential of all different ones (non-linear = mutlidimensional lines that diverge from that point). Such a decider, like a butterfly who could have an option to either flap or not flap, for instance, determines what the contingent reality will be from that point on. As such, what follows AFTER the decision, is linear (determinate).

The conflict I see is if you assume any point even in such a particular optional world as equally valid to 'decide', then this requires a multiverse interpretation (non-linear at EVERY POINT, not just the initial one).

[Obvious Leo]

Bullshit, Scott. Your logic would disgrace the most inexperienced of logicians and you've got no hope of getting it past me. When you assume the idea of an initial state you assume that which you seek to establish by your argument, namely that the universe had a beginning at a finite point in time. Even if we were willing to accept this ludicrous assumption as a valid one your multiverse hypothesis still fails on the grounds of Sufficient Reason. If we transfer the cause of the universe beyond the universe itself we place such a transcendent cause beyond the reach of scientific or philosophical enquiry. The god hypothesis then becomes the simplest and must therefore be preferred on the grounds of Occam economy.

You're running around with a solution looking for a problem to apply itself to.

[Scott Mayers]

Bullshit, Scott. Your logic would disgrace the most inexperienced of logicians and you've got no hope of getting it past me. When you assume the idea of an initial state you assume that which you seek to establish by your argument, namely that the universe had a beginning at a finite point in time. Even if we were willing to accept this ludicrous assumption as a valid one your multiverse hypothesis still fails on the grounds of Sufficient Reason. If we transfer the cause of the universe beyond the universe itself we place such a transcendent cause beyond the reach of scientific or philosophical enquiry. The god hypothesis then becomes the simplest and must therefore be preferred on the grounds of Occam economy.

You're running around with a solution looking for a problem to apply itself to.

Yes, my logic may disgrace the most INEXPERIENCED of logicians. That's why I suggest one get EXPERIENCE first! Nothing of what you say follows as you too are one of those inexperienced of what is supposed to be logical and you need to step back and study it first to qualify.

[Obvious Leo]

Why don't you just try and explain what you can possibly mean by an initial state of the universe without assuming a transcendent cause for it. I take you do know what a transcendent cause is.

[Scott Mayers]

Why don't you just try and explain what you can possibly mean by an initial state of the universe without assuming a transcendent cause for it. I take you do know what a transcendent cause is.

I don't propose Chaos Theory and so disagree to the justification of initial states that allow immanent powers that decide. I was showing how your support of this theory leads to that conclusion, not mine!

I also believe that our contingent universe can have both an infinite cause as equally as a finite one. Both can be deduced.

Take the second law of thermodynamics interpretation of this. While most 'universals' (meaning an ideal state of a confined space or "closed system" as it terms this), even if things begin ordered, while the tendency of this for gases to disperse to fill in the empty space, the ordered initial condition really still can be possible even if improbable given an infinite trials. That is, even an unordered state has at least one unique possible way in which it will eventually become ordered in the same way again given an infinity of time. As such, the initial conditions CAN recycle to the same initial conditions again. So any universe that begins unique is possible to end where it began but is just a rare lottery.

[Obvious Leo]

The second law of thermodynamics only applies to subsystems of the universe and not to the universe in its totality. In case you haven't noticed the overall entropy of the universe is DECREASING and has been steadily doing so for the past 13.8 billion years.

Steven Hawking also had a theory for a time which defined the universe as a gigantic cosmic accident but I don't know if he still makes this claim because I've read nothing of his for years. As a philosopher of physics he might make a journeyman pastrycook.

I've asked you this question before I think but you didn't bother to answer it. Do you find it remarkable that you exist? Of all the possible human beings who might have been conceived in the long ago act of love which brought you into the world it was you and only you who resulted. Was this an event of such astonishing unlikelihood that all the human beings who you are not must also exist somewhere. This is your argument, Scott. Trying to derive meaning from a counter-factual event is utter bullshit because if your auntie had balls then she'd be your uncle.

[surreptitious57]

even an unordered state has at least one unique possible way in which it will eventually become ordered
in the same way again given an infinity of time. As such the initial conditions CAN recycle to the same initial
conditions again. So any universe that begins unique is possible to end where it began but is just a rare lottery

What do you think of the Big Bang / Big Crunch hypothesis which references an eternal model of
Universes with only one existing at any point in time but being replaced by another when it dies
And if it is true then it would answer the question of what happened before this Universe began

[Obvious Leo]

What do you think of the Big Bang / Big Crunch hypothesis which references an eternal model of
Universes with only one existing at any point in time but being replaced by another when it dies
And if it is true then it would answer the question of what happened before this Universe began

This is rapidly becoming mainstream opinion in physics but such a hypothesis is impossible to model within the spacetime paradigm because it is a non-Newtonian theory.

[surreptitious57]

It is also an untestable hypotheses since it cannot be observed in real time. The eternal model is supposed
to be credible however as it is supposed to be compatible with the First Law Of Thermodynamics. But that
is based upon a false premise as the First Law only applies to within the Universe not to the Universe itself
However it does not mean that the eternal model is false just that the First Law cannot be use to justify it

[Scott Mayers]

even an unordered state has at least one unique possible way in which it will eventually become ordered
in the same way again given an infinity of time. As such the initial conditions CAN recycle to the same initial
conditions again. So any universe that begins unique is possible to end where it began but is just a rare lottery

What do you think of the Big Bang / Big Crunch hypothesis which references an eternal model of
Universes with only one existing at any point in time but being replaced by another when it dies
And if it is true then it would answer the question of what happened before this Universe began

Yes, this is reasonable. I prefer initially defining at least some initial non-existence that produces reality. But then this reality can loop to begin where it began via Big Bangs. However, I prefer a Steady State hypothesis since it helps explain where such information can come into any universe without being biased to some single moment or point in space. Big Bang lacks an ability to ever explain how one unique quantity of matter or energy could appear without multiple universes that have the same 'right' to exist in different fixed quantities.

My own theory presumes information through expansion/time as a fourth dimensional factor. But this 'information' is NOT energy or matter initially but only a precursor to what becomes matter and thus energy afterwards.