The Sudden Dawn of the Cosmos and the Constancy of Physical Laws

quote:

---

How can you ask this after a) Stile explained that we look at them to see if they changed; and b) Stile used extremely tentative phrasing throughout to indicate the uncertain nature of our knowledge, never stating that we "know the laws of physics never changed"?

---

You remember yesterday, but only trust that yesterday happened. You do not know that it happened. Likewise, you trust that the laws of physics never changed. You do not know they never changed.

quote:

---

You're declaring that we have to believe in something. If by "faith" you mean a religious faith, then no, we don't have to have faith in something. We can simply take the world as it is rather than as believers in fantastical un

---

You don't know that the world is like that. You could be dreaming, and your mind could be inventing each new level of reality as you discover it. And you don't know that the same world you remember is the world you live in today or if it even exists.Sorry about the quote. The web page's text box was behaving strangely.Edited by Christian777, : No reason given.

quote:

---

The OT or the NT God?

---

The NT God and the NT God are the same God.

quote:

---

He seemed to change a great deal between the OT and the NT.

---

He didn't change. God deals with people in different time periods in different ways. This is explained by the doctrine of dispensationalism.

quote:

---

The OT God was exceptionally capricious, and the NT God was not without his capricious moments.

---

What did God do that was capricious. He said to obey His commandment or face judgment. He said to repent or face judgment. He said to believe the gospel or face judgment. (I'm not talking about dispensations right now.) When did God act capriciously?

quote:

---

Yeah, but that OT again, more anger and retribution than glory.

---

Yeah, but that OT again, more anger and retribution than glory.God showed the people of the Old Testament signs and wonders, and they refused to trust and obey Him.The people of the Old Testament that God judged had broken His laws, and many of them were extremely wicked. He gave them plenty of time to repent but they did not.Pharaoh knew that enslaving the Jews was wicked. He practiced wickedness all his life, and he had a chance to repent. But he refused. God sent ten plagues on a wicked nation, and gave them the opportunity to repent. But they did not.

quote:

---

You could reasonably argue that people of the OT received his justice, less so his love.

---

God loved the whole world even in the Old Testament. The wicked nations of the Old Testament had time to repent but they did not. So the Israelites, God's instrument of judgment, wiped them out.

quote:

---

This is a bald declaration without evidence.

---

It's in the Bible.

quote:

---

Interesting change of name. The AWB in South Africa liked the number 777. They used it in their party flag. Which seems to bear a resemblance to another infamous party flag. I don’t think that’s an association you want to make.

---

I never heard of that party, and I'm not using the number 777 to represent it.

quote:

---

Then trust me. Stop using the number unless you are happy to be associated with them. I don’t think you are.

---

If people wish to associate me with them, that is up to them; I have already declared that I'm not associating myself with them. When you count from 1 to 1,000, after you have counted to 776, then you say, 777. This is a number.Stop paying $666 dollars for items in the store unless you want to be associated with the devil. Don't go inside and stand were there are three six feet apart signs unless you want to be associated with the devil. Numbers are meant for counting. Though they can represent things, they are primarily quantities.I am using the number 7 because God's number is seven.Just be mindful that if you worship the Antichrist and take his mark, his number being 666, then you're going to the Lake of Fire and there's no way out.Edited by Christian777, : No reason given.

quote:

---

What's makes you think this? We know of no causal event for the Big Bang, for virtual particles, or for the time when a radioactive atom decays. Our observations of the natural world reveal some phenomena with causes and some without.

---

You said, “We know of no casual event for the Big Bang”, not, “We know that for the Big Bang there is no casual event.” The truth is, in the absence of knowledge, you make assumptions which are not evidence-based.

quote:

---

This is either nonsense or poorly expressed. Are you trying to say that outside our universe the laws of physics don't exist? If that's what you're saying, how would you know that?

---

Outside the physical, which includes the multiverse, and outside any groups of multiverses and however high a level of grouping you want to go, (for there is certainly a highest level), there is no physical reality, and therefore no physical laws.

quote:

---

Again, this is either nonsense or poorly expressed. Our universe began at the Big Bang, but whether there was something prior to that is unknown. There's no way to know what you mean by the external existence of space.

---

Do you not understand that “to possess eternal existence” means the same thing as “exist eternally”.

quote:

---

I'm not even going to try to decipher this. I think the main reason I can't figure out what you mean is that you have no idea what you mean, either. Your entire paragraph is a mostly unintelligible word salad, as if you're just stringing together jargon that you don't understand into unsupported declarations.

---

To be more specific and clear: The form and behavior of physical objects are limited by non-physical things. Energy and matter are limited by logic and math. The laws of physics depend on logic and math; it is impossible for the laws of physics to violate logic and math.

quote:

---

That's nice. How does that relate to the origin of the universe and the constancy of physical laws?

---

I’m responding to your claim of me being a pessimist.

quote:

---

Your answer is nonsense. You first said we can't know the cause of the universe (you called it "unobservable" and "unpredictable"), and AZPaul3 agreed with you, also pointing out that your "speculative what-ifs" (such as that there must be a cause) are unwarranted. But you then go off the deep end saying that if we don't know the cause then we don't know that the universe won't suddenly change into an elephant.

---

What I’m saying is: Since you don’t know that the physical reality is all there is, you don’t know if you can depend on it to remain as it is, because you don’t know if something beyond it might destroy it. You accept by faith that the physical reality is all there is. You have not observed anything beyond this physical reality, according to your empirical claims. Therefore, wherever there is a lack of knowledge, you yield an assumption, at least in this matter, proving that, what you think you know, you merely accept by faith.

quote:

---

You yourself accept empiricism, but you wouldn't say you have faith in empiricism, right? You would say that your faith is in God. Nonetheless, empiricism says that you must breath, that you must eat, and that you mustn't jump in front of speeding cars. You accept all these empirical facts and many others, just like us.

---

My faith is in God, who created the physical world, able to be observed and understood according to the scientific method, but I also have trust that the physical world, which this God has created, can be observed and understood, not apart from my faith in God, but in line with it.Edited by Christian7, : No reason given.

Edited by Christian7, : No reason given.

quote:

---

What is so funny and typical of the Christian Cult of ********* is that if they truly believed such nonsense they also make the God they market irrelevant and impossible.

---

God has no beginning and no end; therefore your conclusion is false.The universe must have a beginning, because it is animate. If something is animate; it cannot have always been, for change cannot occur eternally in the past, otherwise the present would never come.The universe is limited and governed by non-physical reality, like logic and math. These are not physical; these are mental. Therefore, being mental, they must have predated the universe. In fact, they never had a place in time; they are eternal, not from the present to the future, but in a timeless fashion. Seeing the universe is governed and limited by them, it must have had its origin with them; but since they cannot act, they could not have created them. Therefore, since no inanimate mental object could have produced them, and all animate objects must begin, and eternal mind must have created them, not in time, but as part of time, a thing originating from this timeless, eternal mind.This is not doctrine, but logic, derived from the premises, but likely not against sound doctrine.

quote:

---

I don’t think so. In what way does logic meaningfully limit the universe? Consider wave-particle duality. If logic allows that, what won’t it allow ?

---

You reject logic, and yet make arguments with logic, supposing that truth is according to logic, but denying that the universe is limited by logic, thereby denying that the cosmos is limited by what can possibly be true. Therefore, what you say is this: The universe contradicts truth.

quote:

---

That is not logical. Just because something is mental does not mean that it must predate the universe. Not at all.

​

Further, if they are purely mental how can they “govern the universe” ? There seems no obvious connection between the presence of minds and the way the universe behaves. Indeed, since logical truths are necessary truths, how can they be dependent on the existence of minds? That would be a contradiction. So, no this does not make sense. Probably it’s based on a hopelessly confused idea of logic.

​

Well, at least nonsense is better than dishonesty. But neither paints Christianity in a good light at all.

---

The universe is limited by logic and math, and logic and math are not physical. Therefore, non-physical things can limit physical things.If logic and math are not mental, they are nevertheless non-physical, otherwise they would appear as physical objects, and we no of no object which we call logic and math, but have symbols to represent them, which represent things that exist in our minds. And if they exist in our minds, where did they come from? If they were invented by our minds, then how do they limit the universe? And if the universe is not limited by them, how can we use them to understand it? And if they do exist in our minds, and they came from the universe, then where in the universe did they come from, seeing there is no object in the universe which we call logic and math, or which is contained in logic and math. Therefore, the universe is influenced by non-physical realities.And if these non-physical realities are not mental, then what do we have in our minds, which is not a reference to something physical, and not a mental object, what do we have in our minds that we call logic and math?If our minds are governed by logic and math, then how did our minds arise? For if a mind is brought forth by logic and math, then they are not logic and math. Therefore, a mind does not by necessity depend on logic and math. Therefore, if a mind by necessity does not depend on logic and math, but our own minds are governed by logic and math, where did logic and math come from? Therefore, no non-mental reality contains logic and math; therefore, logic and math exists in a mind, which in one aspect differs from our mind, that it is not governed by logic and math.Edited by Christian7, : No reason given.

Edited by Christian7, : No reason given.

Edited by Christian7, : No reason given.

quote:

---

PaulK did not reject logic. He rejected the assumptions you are making about logic.

---

PaulK clearly questioned whether logic permits the particle wave duality, thus elevating physics above the truth of logic.

quote:

---

Speaking as a mathematician -- no, it isn't.

---

Then what's the point of describing the laws of physics with mathematical equations?Can I have three apples, then add another apple, and have seven, without three being added instantly?Edited by Christian7, : No reason given.

If I made an unsound or invalid or non-sensical argument, and you refute it, then I will reject that argument, and use a different one. But if it is sound and logical, and you misunderstood it, or I did not properly communicate it, then I will explain it.

The universe is limited by logic and math, for it does not contradict the rules of logic, nor the rules of math. If it were not limited by logic and math, then it could contradict them. But since it cannot, it is limited by them.Since it is limited by them, and logic and math are not the physical reality, it is limited by something other than itself, something which is non-physical, seeing they do not appear as physical entities.We understand the universe through logic and math, because the universe operates according to it. If the universe did not operate according to it, we could not understand it through logic and math. For the universe, able to violate logic and math, would not be understood through logic and math, for logic and math would be useless for comprehending it, being violated by it.We do not understand the universe through language, but through what our language signifies. We do not understand through words, but through the meaning of the words. Therefore, since our universe cannot contradict this meaningfulness, it is limited by this as well. It would certainly seem, following from these things, that the universe is limited by a mental reality, seeing that meaning is mental.It is not that meaning is derived from the universe, for then the universe could have things being unmeaningful. Rather, the universe is limited by meaning, itself being meaningful.

quote:

---

In fact I did not. I suggested that logic permits the wave-particle duality and therefore does not impose much control (it indeed any) on the universe. But of course you never addressed that issue.

---

I never said that the particle/wave duality was a violation of the laws of logic. There are the laws of physics, and there are the laws of logic. Physical laws can be violated, (not that that is a violation of physical laws), because it is not illogical for physical laws to be violated, only for logical laws to be violated.

quote:

---

This again is without explanation. Indeed what “rules of logic” or “rules of math” could the universe contradict ? Logic and mathematics are generalities applied to the universe, indeed developed to help us understand the universe. The “rules of mathematics” were originally developed to describe real situations, so it is surprising when they work to do so?

---

And yet, you say that the reality of God is impossible because logic disallows it. If logic explains the universe, and is not limiter of the universe, then why should it limit something which is not the universe, from whom being you need not derive the same system. And if necessarily, from both entities the same system must be derived, then are they not both bound by logic? And if bound by them, are they not limited by them? But God is not bound by logic; yet he follows the rules of logic, invented by Him.God is not the universe; the concept of God is not the universe. Therefore descriptions of the universe say nothing concerning God, according to your claims.

quote:

---

Again you are making assertions without explaining. I’m still waiting for your explanation of these supposed limits and why you think they are imposed by math and logic - or indeed how they could be imposed by math or logic.

---

One plus two is three. Put an apple on the table. Then add two apples. How many apples do you have? Can it be any different?

quote:

---

Or so you assume. You have yet to offer the slightest support - or indeed to address the problems I have raised. Rather than dropping a questionable argument or explaining git you are just repeating yourself - again.

---

I am trying to explain it.

quote:

---

And exactly the same can be said for math and logic.

---

Which means that the universe would be influenced and limited by even more meaningfulness.

quote:

---

Alternatively your ideas are wrong and the “limits” you suppose come not from the mental entities - to the extent that those l8mits actually exist. That certainly seems more plausible than the idea that the idiosyncrasies of human languages actually limit reality,

---

Certainly the rules of phonetics and grammar do not limit the universe, but what can can be possible, according to meaning, according to math, according to logic, and whatever else.

quote:

---

This is just more confused nonsense. The universe is not meaningful in that sense - the meaning is a mapping from the language to the universe (as we perceive it). Neither the language nor the mapping limit the universe and it is absurd to suggest otherwise,

---

And what are we mapping which gives us math and logic?Edited by Christian7, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Let us deal with one of the more serious ones. Logical truths are necessarily true. Therefore they cannot be dependent on the existence of minds for their truth. Please explain how you would answer that.

---

Necessarily true in what realm, in one that is not governed by logic, as well as in one that is governed by logic?

quote:

---

And now you are just making things up.

---

Maybe you're not an atheists, but many atheists affirm that God is a logical impossibility.

quote:

---

Put a few bacteria on a nutrient plate, wait a while and you’ll have a lot more.

​

More importantly you aren’t doing anything to show that this is a limit imposed by mathematics rather than an example of a situation mathematics was invented to describe.

---

You still started out with a few bacteria, and they replicated, not contrary to the laws of math.

quote:

---

And there you go again insisting you are right without any answer to the objection.

---

quote:

---

But languages differ in the meanings they express. Colour words can vary, for instance. Does that limit reality or is it just a limit of languages?

---

Just coin a new word and you can express the same meaning. Just add a new part of speech, or a new grammatical rule, or a new syntax, or use more words, and you can express the exact same meaning.

quote:

---

Mathematics works exactly like a language in this sense - though a more precise one, without the ambiguities of natural language. With logic the mapping would be through language - logic does not address the meaning of the premises or conclusions - but it does demand strong consistency in the use of language (which means that the ambiguities of natural language must be suppressed).

---

I know all that.

I formed these syllogisms.A: Every non-miraculous occurrence in the universe makes sense according to meaning and logic.
B: This would not be true if there were no minds to observe them.
C: Therefore, at least one mind exist for the universe to make sense according to meaning and logic.
D: Therefore, if no minds existed, the universe would not make sense according to meaning and logic.A: If the universe did something other than according to meaning and logic, it would not make sense according to meaning and logic.A: If the universe did not make sense according to meaning and logic, it would be violating the laws of meaning and logic.
B: If no minds existed, the universe would not make sense according to meaning and logic.
C: Therefore, if no minds existed, the universe would be violating the laws of meaning and logic.A: The universe cannot violate the laws of meaning and logic.
B: If no minds existed, the universe would be violating the laws of meaning and logic.
C: Therefore, one mind must exist for the universe to exist.