Jens,

If you really don't understand the logic, consider it for awhile. There are two lines of logic involved. First, logically something can't come from nothing. That means that there could not have been "nothing" to start with or at any other possible time. The second line of logic involves states of reality. We know of just one state of reality, our own. Logically there could be other states of reality (multi-verses) but "nothingness" like any other imaged state is probably not one of them. What does a universe of nothingness really mean anyway? The idea of nothingness as a form of reality seems to be a misconception by those that ascribe to the idea that some beginning entity was originally created from nothing, leading to an imponderable question; why/ how was it created? (rhetorical)

No, I'm not misunderstanding. I agree with everything you wrote up to that last line. So I'm not disagreeing at all. I'm just saying, why would there be anything at all, including not being anything at all. Why does existence or even non-existence exist? But I do realize this is the kind of line of thinking that makes one's brain explode, so I don't intend to pursue it further, except when I've had a sufficient dose of alcohol. . .

__________________
As above, so below

chug! chug! chug!

__________________
Minuteman: You have now been warned!
01101001: I beg to differ. I have been amused. Not warned.

While we have a lot to be thankful to the ancient Greeks, I wouldn't be placing too much stock in all of their philosophizing. After all, their concept of the universe was far more limited than ours. Logic alone is insufficient to answer why there is something rather than nothing. When arguing from logic, you need to make certain assumptions as a starting point. But those assumptions are just that, assumptions. If they are false, then the whole argument is a house of cards and will fall apart.

It's more than not having an application for mathematics, mathematics itself wouldn't exist. Mathematics exists because there are objects in the universe and some of those objects are smart enough to count - us. The fact that we can use mathematics to describe the universe is indeed a 'gift', but the fact that mathematics can equally well describe things which can never be physically realised (as can natural language) also means that it cannot be the final truth, any more than English is.

__________________
Conscious reasoning is an attempt to justify the choice after it has been made.

I'm always a bit wary of such assured speculation. Don't get me wrong, I'm certainly not sure either way about that, but mathematics is a stunningly powerful tool for describing the universe so surely you can understand where that belief would come from?

Oh, and I appreciate that you meant language. It aint all English.

__________________
Minuteman: You have now been warned!
01101001: I beg to differ. I have been amused. Not warned.

I can understand it yes, but as I said, mathematics also describes physical absurdities.

Indeed, that's why I mentioned natural language in general, and English as a specific example.

__________________
Conscious reasoning is an attempt to justify the choice after it has been made.

Yeah, I appreciate where you are coming from. Still, I'm sure I've read before that in the past physicists have found applications later for what were once just mathematical games.

If you add to that the fact that a lot of physics developments in the last century or so have been concepts that, if the don't still seem absurd to people these days, at least would've seemed exceedingly so centuries before.

I'm certainly not saying that your statement is wrong, it's just that I personally find it hard to imagine where the next twist in physics theory could come from, so I have a hard time feeling so certain about any speculative statement either way.

__________________
Minuteman: You have now been warned!
01101001: I beg to differ. I have been amused. Not warned.

Jens, Tokyo, cool! haven't been to Japan yet. Will be going to China in a few weeks for work though; closer to you than Southern California where I live.

Here is some additional logic:

Based upon the logic I presented before the universe could have had no cause. AND
Something cannot come from nothing.

Based upon these two logical foundation principles:

Whether the universe is finite or infinite in time it has existed for all time.

"For all time" means that for all the time that time has existed.

This universe of ours we know has something in it.

Following this line of logic it would have been logically impossible for there ever to have been a time when there was nothing.

If one starts with nothing it would be logically impossible for it to turn into something (again for the reasons/ logic I previously presented/ discussed)

.......therefore "nothingness" without something somewhere is not a possible state of reality.

If you still don't understand, don't give up. Read again carefully what has been written before. If you think you find a flaw in the logic keep asking questions. If you have not already, you will eventually grasp the fundamental concepts. I promise it's not mind boggling.

BTW I do like your last line: "....except when I've had a sufficient dose of alcohol." ... I agree that a different frame of mind works well at times .

DrWho,

I agree with this statement

Wow spoons, you get around. I see you commenting all over on BAUT, cool!

I feel confident that you will vaguely remember this prediction concerning the next big twists in physics. The next big twists in Physics/ Cosmology I believe will be:
(speculation of course, as you said)

• The replacement of the Big Bang Theory with another quite different theory. (my guess, within 20 years)

• Quantum Theory will be replaced by a more logical theory. Quantum Mechanics, the mathematics, will remain but it will continue to improve.
  (....within 20 years)

• Particle theory will greatly change.(.......within 20 years)

• General Relativity will be altered. (......within 20 years)

• Special Relativity will disappear in favor of Lorentz Transforms. (...within 40 years)

• Ether Theory will make a comeback.(.....within 40 years)

• The actual mechanics (logical understanding) of both gravity and magnetism will finally be understood. (......within 80 years)

Accordingly, every major theory in Physics that is believed today will change its explanations and/ or its math, or it will be replaced. This is based upon the belief that much of the theories formulated in the last hundred years seriously lack a logical foundation. It's also based upon the belief that everything eventually can be logically explained and understood.

Hmmm... that would be a huge shift in a relatively short period of time.

I've heard people suggest bits & pieces of that here and there, but are you referring to any particular article or something you can link to?

I'd be interested to see what is these predictions are based on - current knowledge, theories, guesses at major paradigm shifts or what? I could imagine there may be a number of adjustments to some of the current concepts you mention, but such widespread changes would presumably be triggered by one or two major discoveries.

__________________
Minuteman: You have now been warned!
01101001: I beg to differ. I have been amused. Not warned.

Spoons,

I think that is a good presumption. I've been theorizing for some 50 years now. My own site concerning cosmology and physics is pantheory.org. There you will see my own theories. I've followed alternative theories over the years and believe that some of them hint at fundamental truths that I believe are missing in today's physics. Since these ideas and theories are ATM I cannot discuss them here but can briefly discuss them in Off-Topic-Babbling or on my website if you or anyone else wishes. Just PM me.

respectfully, forrest

Sure, I'll go have a look at your site then. I think I may remember you mentioning your site before actually.

Sounds interesting. I guess it may take a little time to absorb, so don't expect an immediate response though. Cheers, and have a nice day.

__________________
Minuteman: You have now been warned!
01101001: I beg to differ. I have been amused. Not warned.

Bold mine.
It seems that you place an inordinate amount of faith in pure logic. Logical reasoning has limitations, as is demonstrated by the Cantor/Bertrand Russell paradox. Simply stated, consider a barber who shaves everyone who does not shave himself, and no one else. If the barber shaves himself, then he doesn't shave himself; if he doesn't shave himself, then he does.

Mathematicians and logicians built on Russell's paradox, and many results were derived logically, showing that logic itself had limits. The most famous is probably Godel's two incompleteness theorems. The second one can be stated:

If an axiomatic system can be proven to be consistent from within itself, then it is inconsistent.

But even if you were to ignore the problems in formal logic, the notion of eternal existence, or the flip side, non-existence are still not comprehendable at the most basic level (even though we can use language to speak about them).

__________________
Conscious reasoning is an attempt to justify the choice after it has been made.

I was arguing with someone on another forum, who didn't believe in free will, as determinism forbade it, he thought, but logic is only a construct of our reality, I would argue, it does not have an object existence. I don't think anything has an object existence, or that there are any objective realities; everything, all observers are part of the system they view, so I believe that logic can't prove or disprove anything really. Logic is like a stick, it can be used as a tool, bit it is just a stick, not the answer to life the universe and everything.....

Isn't even maths part of the physical world? Does the idea of it existing without some sort of world/reality even mean anything.

...Where did the infinity number of base 10 numbers in pi come from? Or those beautiful fractals, made from chaos equation programs on computers; where did they come from?

bit woolly minded tonight, but have been thinking about these things recently.

__________________

DrWho,

I agree with you that there can be flaws in logic both verbal and mathematical, no matter how hard one tries but it is all we have. I think it is necessary to totally analyze logically what is being said or proposed, to have a real chance of understanding it if it seems to be a difficult concept or equation.

I think your barber example is funny but the missing logic is easily picked up.

I think this falls under the category of FALACIES OF COMPLEX QUESTIONS.
The particular category is called conclusions drawn from A STATEMENT OF A FALSE PREMISE.

The false premise here is "consider a barber who shaves everyone who does not shave himself, and no one else."

The correct/ complete premise should have been "consider a barber who shaves everyone else who does not shave himself, and no one else"

If the barber shaves himself there is no contradiction. If he doesn't then someone else can shave him, again no contradiction.

Frog march,

Free will is difficult to defend based upon determinism. Today's quantum theory has no problem with random possibilities which seemingly would include free will. I've considered the possibilities and decided that the answer is dependent on at least two factors: A strict definition of free will and the true nature of the quantum world.

Again there are at least two types of logic, verbal and mathematical. All reasoning is based upon logic and reasoning of some type, deductive, inductive, verbal, mathematical. Without logic and its application of reasoning it would seem that there could be no civilization, science, or math.

These are "beautiful" human constructs resulting from mathematical reasoning.

I didn't say that logic didn't function, wasn't useful; it's just that there is no objective existence for logic, therefor logic must depend on what part of the system/reality you are in..

they are just the product of computer programs that use chaos equations.
Those programs could have existed a billion years ago, if someone had written them; if you had a computer that could make random programs, it would eventually come up with a program that would produce fractals....I suppose it does take someone to make the computer, which just shows what I was saying, about maths being part of reality, and not having an objective existence.

__________________

I would have said that it is least tenable to suppose that logic, and mathematics, can be expressed in a way that is universal.

Logic and math are a way to bring order to chaos, its how our minds have evolved to think, this helps us survive and we can make the most out of what we have on offer. Is math and logic therefore a predetermined part of the universe or just an intelligent construct to make as accurate as possible predictions from the chaos? To imagine and conceive how the universe came to be we have to use this logic to try and understand this chaos. Its just the way we are wired

__________________
ooops..... wrong forum!!!

So you would sweep the paradox under the carpet because you do not like how it is framed? In doing so, you're ignoring what Russell's paradox is actually implying. The barber example is just a simplification of a more complex problem which deals with set theory - a prominent part of mathematics.

I'm not saying that we should ignore logic and throw out all the useful bits, but to simply be aware that it does have limitations and that we should be careful when we try to appeal to its supposed superiority.

__________________
Conscious reasoning is an attempt to justify the choice after it has been made.

DrWho,

I agree. Reasoning from logic definitely has limitations and wrong conclusions and theories are formulated all the time from seemingly valid logic. But reasoning and analysis via logic, in one form or another, are seemingly the only tools available to solve the many problems and "riddles" that challenge humanity.

cosmocrazy,

sounds right to me.

This question I believe is somewhat related to the OP. If limited definitions for mathematics and logic are given, a logical answer for this question might result. Since some could argue with these strict definitions, I simply could say that in my opinion mathematics, physics, and logic are constructs of ordered intelligence which do not exist outside mental, written, recorded, computers, etc. representations of them.

Logical reasoning exists because the universe itself (mostly) behaves that way. The laws of physics are consistent and predictable (within broad limits) - they are not chaotic and arbitrary. If they changed arbitrarily from one moment to the next, we would not have anything useful to say about the universe (even if we could exist in such a place). So, I think logical reasoning follows from the stability and predictability of the laws of nature (even with QM, we can make accurate predictions).

No, I would say that it's the lack of chaos and the order that causality brings that lets us understand much of the universe. But we may never understand the whole thing. As Godel showed, within a rigidly logical system such as arithmetic, propositions can be formulated that are undecidable or undemonstrable within the axioms of the system. That is, within the system, there exist certain clear-cut statements that can neither be proved or disproved. So at the big picture level, we are still stymied!

__________________
Conscious reasoning is an attempt to justify the choice after it has been made.

I really can't present any evidence for this, but my belief is different. I think that even if there were no universe at all, the truth would still be that 1 + 1 = 2. My view is that the truth exists before reality, and I think you are stating that reality exists before truth, or that truth can be created by reality. It sounds a bit like a conflict between materialism and idealism. I think I am articulating a kind of Platonic view whereas you are stating Aristotle's view.

__________________
As above, so below

It is fairly cool now, but usually in the summer it ain't!

I think there is a bit of a disconnect, in that you are making logical statements, all of which I happen to agree with, but I'm saying that I still find it hard to imagine. To use an analogy, it's like saying, "I know logically that there are an infinite number of integers, but to try to imagine that is mind-boggling." You must agree that trying to visualize infinity can hurt the brain, even if logically you know there is nothing unusual about it at all. A computer would have no problem with it, but as humans we have emotions, and I'm talking about the emotions rather than the pure logic.

__________________
As above, so below

Why do you have such a seemingly strong belief when you yourself acknowledge that you don't have any evidence for it? What has lead you to this belief?

One plus one what? Remember, there is nothing.

I really don't know what you mean by 'truth'. How is truth related to the presence or absence of reality? In the absence of everything, what is truth? Truth is only provisional, ultimate truth can never be discovered. I think these are purely semantic or philosophical arguments which can never be answered, even in principle.

__________________
Conscious reasoning is an attempt to justify the choice after it has been made.

Jens, Thanks for the heat info on Tokyo.

Infinity is a necessary concept in higher mathematics. The limit of many equations is infinity in one form or another. If you believe in an infinite universe then infinity exists everywhere. If you believe in a finite universe in size and time then some would assert that infinity is just a mathematical construct and has no existence in the real world outside the concepts/ equations that create them. Still real problems are solved by the use of this concept.

In the same way as minus figures in math have no real application in the physical world. For me infinity has no real meaning, its just a mathematical construct, in reality it has no purpose no definition, no beginning, no end, its = to zero / nothing. Trying to apply logic using infinity as a real concept is as useful as saying 2 apples minus 4 apples = -2 apples, they just don't exist, unless you want to apply virtual reality. Infinity just seems illogical.

__________________
ooops..... wrong forum!!!

Frog march,

sounds right to me.