Free will, freedom from what?

[bahman]

No, there is no prior point to the beginning of time. It is meaningless to talk about the prior point to the beginning of time. There was a point, the beginning of time and there was physical stuff there. If physical stuff simply existed at the beginning of time then you don't need a first cause to create it.

When did the beginning of time begin, in your opinion bahman?

According to cosmologists 13.8 billion years ago. I however do not agree with the basic principle of cosmology which states that the universe is expanding and started from a singularity. These are off-topic though.

[Immanuel Can]

I didn't say about eternal stuff that has power to create. I simply said that stuff existed at the beginning of time.

If it's not eternal, then your candidate for "First Cause" isn't plausible. You would have the causal regress problem, namely, that a chain of causes infinite in the past would never begin. But things have begun. So we know that it had to be something prior to the "stuff," as you call it, that is the genuine First Cause of all things.

No, there is no prior point to the beginning of time. It is meaningless to talk about the prior point to the beginning of time. There was a point, the beginning of time and there was physical stuff there. If physical stuff simply existed at the beginning of time then you don't need a first cause to create it.

Then you must suppose the "stuff" was eternal. Only problem: we can see it wasn't. It's entropic.

No, the stuff didn't begin to exist. It simply existed.

Then again: tell us what this "stuff" is, so we can see if it is an adequate explanation for the universe existing. If it is, we'll believe you; if it's not, then it's not. And we'll say why.

Just physical stuff, matter, and energy.

Physical stuff, matter, is entropic. It's not eternal.

[Immanuel Can]

I however do not agree with the basic principle of cosmology which states that the universe is expanding and started from a singularity.

Then you don't agree with science. And you can choose not to, of course. I won't stop you.

[bahman]

If it's not eternal, then your candidate for "First Cause" isn't plausible. You would have the causal regress problem, namely, that a chain of causes infinite in the past would never begin. But things have begun. So we know that it had to be something prior to the "stuff," as you call it, that is the genuine First Cause of all things.

No, there is no prior point to the beginning of time. It is meaningless to talk about the prior point to the beginning of time. There was a point, the beginning of time and there was physical stuff there. If physical stuff simply existed at the beginning of time then you don't need a first cause to create it.

Then you must suppose the "stuff" was eternal.

No, it does not mean that.

[Atla]

Btw it's fairly clear that the observable universe is a Goldilocks-zone, this is necessarily true.

The total universe could be say ten times or a billion times or infinitely larger. For example with time and entropy flowing backwards in half of it etc.

[Fairy]

No, there is no prior point to the beginning of time. It is meaningless to talk about the prior point to the beginning of time. There was a point, the beginning of time and there was physical stuff there. If physical stuff simply existed at the beginning of time then you don't need a first cause to create it.

When did the beginning of time begin, in your opinion bahman?

According to cosmologists 13.8 billion years ago. I however do not agree with the basic principle of cosmology which states that the universe is expanding and started from a singularity. These are off-topic though.

Thanks.

Is time simply a man made measurement do you think, did human language invent time?

[bahman]

When did the beginning of time begin, in your opinion bahman?

According to cosmologists 13.8 billion years ago. I however do not agree with the basic principle of cosmology which states that the universe is expanding and started from a singularity. These are off-topic though.

Thanks.

Is time simply a man made measurement do you think, did human language invent time?

Time to me is a substance and it is required for any change.

[Fairy]

Btw it's fairly clear that the observable universe is a Goldilocks-zone, this is necessarily true.

The total universe could be say ten times or a billion times or infinitely larger. For example with time and entropy flowing backwards in half of it etc.

That could well be the case. I like the Goldilocks-zone idea. Scientists can only measure with the availability of knowledge that humans have to date, which is limitation and couldn’t possibly stretch beyond that limitation without it being conjecture and speculation.

[Immanuel Can]

No, there is no prior point to the beginning of time. It is meaningless to talk about the prior point to the beginning of time. There was a point, the beginning of time and there was physical stuff there. If physical stuff simply existed at the beginning of time then you don't need a first cause to create it.

Then you must suppose the "stuff" was eternal.

No, it does not mean that.

Then something caused the "stuff" to exist. And that means, it wasn't eternal. Which we already know from the science you deny.

I guess it's your call: either bring your beliefs into line with what logic and science are giving you every reason to believe, or leave your beliefs as they are, which is incompatible with science and logic.

I'm not perturbed, and I won't tell you which you must do, because it's the freedom of every person to believe what they choose -- even irrational, illogical or untrue things.

[Fairy]

According to cosmologists 13.8 billion years ago. I however do not agree with the basic principle of cosmology which states that the universe is expanding and started from a singularity. These are off-topic though.

Thanks.

Is time simply a man made measurement do you think, did human language invent time?

Time to me is a substance and it is required for any change.

So are you saying that substance can observe, know a change has taken place?

[Atla]

Btw it's fairly clear that the observable universe is a Goldilocks-zone, this is necessarily true.

The total universe could be say ten times or a billion times or infinitely larger. For example with time and entropy flowing backwards in half of it etc.

That could well be the case. I like the Goldilocks-zone idea. Scientists can only measure with the availability of knowledge that humans have to date, which is limitation and couldn’t possibly stretch beyond that limitation without it being conjecture and speculation.

For example a big problem in physics is that they don't find the all the missing anti-matter. What they don't consider is that if the missing anti-matter was here, we would all blow up or die of radiation. Humans could never have evolved in the first place.

[Fairy]

Btw it's fairly clear that the observable universe is a Goldilocks-zone, this is necessarily true.

The total universe could be say ten times or a billion times or infinitely larger. For example with time and entropy flowing backwards in half of it etc.

That could well be the case. I like the Goldilocks-zone idea. Scientists can only measure with the availability of knowledge that humans have to date, which is limitation and couldn’t possibly stretch beyond that limitation without it being conjecture and speculation.

For example a big problem in physics is that they don't find the all the missing anti-matter. What they don't consider is that if the missing anti-matter was here, we would all blow up or die of radiation. Humans could never have evolved in the first place.

I’ve heard that too.

What I wonder happened to the missing anti matter then.

[Atla]

That could well be the case. I like the Goldilocks-zone idea. Scientists can only measure with the availability of knowledge that humans have to date, which is limitation and couldn’t possibly stretch beyond that limitation without it being conjecture and speculation.

For example a big problem in physics is that they don't find the all the missing anti-matter. What they don't consider is that if the missing anti-matter was here, we would all blow up or die of radiation. Humans could never have evolved in the first place.

I’ve heard that too.

What I wonder happened to the missing anti matter then.

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.

[Fairy]

For example a big problem in physics is that they don't find the all the missing anti-matter. What they don't consider is that if the missing anti-matter was here, we would all blow up or die of radiation. Humans could never have evolved in the first place.

I’ve heard that too.

What I wonder happened to the missing anti matter then.

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.

[Atla]

I’ve heard that too.

What I wonder happened to the missing anti matter then.

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.