Okay, Deep Sight. . as you can see, I don't have the poetic prowess you wield in the prolegomena of your various thoughtful threads. I shall continue to toss my hat to you for that mastery. So allow me to simply invite you (and our interested friends) to this thread - from here.

---

One of the intriguing ideas that has lighted upon our humanity is not merely thinking about our existence, but about existence itself. Burning questions continue to warm the summers through the histories of our reason and experiences:

* who are we?

* where did we come from?

* how did we get here?

* is it useful to even think at all about existence -
- of our universe?
- of our[/b]selves?
- of something/someone other than [b]us?

Various attempts to appease these enquiries have been anything but the proverbial Balm of Gilead - the ulcers continue to fester, the quests of our humanity increase daily, and in the midst of the buzz we are constantly wowed by new insights that retire old bandages.

But in the solemnity of our humanity's hope (and probably the audacity of courage), we dare. . .

We dare to ask questions and more questions.

We dare to probe our own calcified prejudices in order to give place to
the understanding of ideas expressed by others.

We dare to see things differently - after all, is our known world not 'different'
from yet-to-be-probed regions within the possibilities of "existence" outside our own?

Yes, we even dare to discuss further insights and possibilities that offer a different flavour or flavours than the palate we grew up with and are accustomed to.

Could it be that we may come off with 'ahs' and 'wows' and 'uhms' as dinner is served? What possibilities lie within our domains that we have not yet considered awakening?

Welcome, Deep Sight and friends. Enjoy.

Deep Sight, please hang on and let me make some preliminary remarks.

Perhaps I should not be too hasty to jump to the intrigues of numbers . . but let me start by making a few preliminary remarks that birthed this thread.

First, I'd like to note that this is not a thread to offer carbonated religious appetizers. No offences meant; but even though I am a Christian, I sincerely believe that we can reason outside the box and consider exploring what we might not have ever dreamed of in our comfortable religious specters. I do not even intend to lace this thread with assertive conclusions that limit our musings to any ardent system(s).

That said, let me highlight another point that sparked my interest to float this thread: playing with numbers. Like I said sometime ago, as long as we keep it on "abstract quantifying/quantification", believe me, anyone can work magic on that (https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-343779.0.html#msg4819222) - and this "magic" among other things is what I'd like to demonstrate for those with some interest in this area. It might be somewhat pivotal to drum home this very point just so that we get to appreciate the value of 'universality index' (if you grant that) in all of this.

This is not some cosmetic talk with cleverly framed grammar, lol. Rather, it is important for us to see the possibility of just how we could all be "both right and wrong" at the same time, particularly depending on the context & perspectives of each discussant's insight. However, it need not be limited to "abstract quantifying" - other considerations are very welcome.

Now a few things need to be cleared up.

(1).  What in the world would I mean by 'universality index'?
[list]Nothing special other than an idea - the idea being the possibility that nearly all contrasting, coherent and consumate phenomena point back to a singularity upon which any form of diversity is predicated. Hmmm, that is certainly a mouthful, and indeed an ambitious statement to assert. Along the line, I'll try and develop the idea and probably help to prod (and possibly awaken) a philosophical spark in some of my audience.[/list]

(2).  Secondly, what could be meant by "abstract quantifying/quantification"?*
[list]Again, as far as this thread goes, no special deal to that other than the idea that certain entities and qualities assume only 'specific parameters' for them to be valid. Therefore, outside those given parameters, the same qualities would be invalid and thus mirror a false image. A 'false image' here does not mean they are a 'lie' altogether, but simply that they do not prove valid when tested under other conditions or parameters.[/list]

Let's talk.



Disclaimers:
Please note that what is shared here do not 'conclusively' prove anything; nor does it set out to draw any conclusions that are water-tight about the existence of any phenomenon. If anything at all, it is intended to help us think carefully about our own known world, our existence and experiences in relation to existences and potentialities in possible other worlds.


_{* 'abstract quantifying' is not used here in a strictly mathematical sense.}

Brilliant Viaro, just brilliant, and that's really delightrful prose in the first post, really really. . .

At this preliminary stage, perhaps it is not out of place to add one or two little twists to the purpose of this discourse. Actually you have already stated it all, but for emphasis -

1. What do the discussants regard as the purpose of their individual lives. . . I ask this, and i invite everyone to give honest, free answers personal to them. . . i believe that we, and this discussion, will be greatly enriched thereby.

2. Do we have a perception of a "common" or "collective" mind of humanity or the world? If we do, what is this "collective" and does it mean anything in determining the purpose of our existence.

And finally, one question which i would love to put to everybody is this one. . . I know it may seem irrelevant and off-tangent now, but its not really. . .

Do you think illogicalities exist?

Deep Sight:

Do you think illogicalities exist?

Reality is, IMO, illogical. It is best observed, critically, from as many vantage points as possible.

I'm not disappointed with your entry, and thank you for those core questions to help contextualize further discussions.

The first two are vital enough to warrant careful answers; in which case I shall resist the temptation to proffer impetuous responses. Given that, here's a note about the concise last question:

Deep Sight:

Do you think illogicalities exist?

Yes, they exist. Not only so, they are necessary.

'Illogicalities' is assumed in two contexts here:
       (a) invalid or incorrect reasoning, and
       (b) criticism.

There is indeed 'invalid reasoning', and this statement could be founded on the premise that valid reasoning follows a set of principles which are both formal and systematic.

However, in order to recognize illogicalities in any type of reasoning, there is necessarily a set of criticisms that are employed to weigh the validity of that type of reasoning. This does not mean that every 'illogicality' is thereby assumed to be a contradiction or invalid; it would rather point out the weaknesses in such a reasoning that do not measure up to a set of established paradigms.

What does this mean in simple English? In simple terms, illogicalities are the necessary criticisms that weigh the validity of any reasoning. Without these criticisms, it would be difficult to establish the validity or invalidity of any type of reasoning.

The value of illogicalities is seen all around us in our various endeavours. One such will be seen repeatedly in this thread in the application of criticisms to whatever views we share . . . as well beyond this thread, it is the 'Cinderella' of social philosophers.

Krayola:

Reality is, IMO, illogical. It is best observed, critically, from as many vantage points as possible.

Beautiful! I especially like this clause: "from as many vantage points as possible." It was precisely what I had in mind earlier when saying -

I do not even intend to lace this thread with assertive conclusions that limit our musings to any ardent system(s).

However, it need not be limited to "abstract quantifying" - other considerations are very welcome.

Poll!!    Please answer either yes or no. . . (u can briefly state why if u like sef) 

Is the universe alive?

Krayola:

Poll!!    Please answer either yes or no. . . (u can briefly state why if u like sef) 

Is the universe alive?

Lol, how do you mean 'alive'? In contrast to what?

haha. As in contrast to dead.

I was just watchin some video that i thought was pretty cool. Check it out if u have time. it's pretty long tho. But the 1st 10-15 mins is kinda neat.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2379215612075806586&ei=1QruStSkFYTYrgLkzK2tAg&q=thank+god+for+evolution&hl=en&view=2#

Krayola:

haha. As in contrast to dead.

Hehe. . you're so funny!

I was just watchin some video that i thought was pretty cool. Check it out if u have time. it's pretty long tho. But the 1st 10-15 mins is kinda neat.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2379215612075806586&ei=1QruStSkFYTYrgLkzK2tAg&q=thank+god+for+evolution&hl=en&view=2#

Will do so during the week. Thanks.

So, Krayola. . done watching that vid. Interesting though, even where I'm not particular about natural theology.

haha yeah. I'm not into any kind of theology. I just thought it was interesting too. It's just another way to look at things

Krayola:

. . It's just another way to look at things

You're absolutely right, lol.

Of singularities and Inifinities.

What do we do with singularities and infinities when thinking about existence - our existence?


Singularities

It shouldn't be news anymore that in attempts to unravel the mystery of the origin of our existence, our thoughts go back to the very first points of the history of the universe. Most of us are familiar with the idea of a 'singularity'. The question is not so much as to whether or not there is one; rather, we often think in terms of how far reaching such a concept could be applicable.

Long has it been heralded that discourses on various cosmologies tend to feature a 'singularity' in one form or another. It is commonly held that according to general relativity, the initial state of the universe at the beginning of the Big Bang was a singularity. But then, how is this singularity interpreted by various thinkers?

Some infer that the singularity = 'God'.

That inference, as we have noted elsewhere, is froth with serious problems, which would not be helpful to reproduce here. However, perhaps we should note that the singularity did not create the universe, in as much as that 'singularity' is in itself dependent on a condition. This condition is the assumption that general relativity is ‘correct’; and as such, the same general relativity must (at the very least) be broken down for the computations of the BB theory to at a singularity. What is even more remarkable is that some have argued that ‘a correct treament of quantum gravity may avoid singularity’^[1]. For the more savvy, I refer you to the Penrose-Hawking singularity theorems.

Even with all that, singularity is an interesting concept in cosmological thinking about the origins and existence of our universe. Taking the BB theory again as an example, the earliest period of time in the history of the universe is measured from zero to approximately 10⁻⁴³ seconds. This is interesting in itself, because while some may assume a singularity at 1, the more workable measurement is from ‘0’. If the measurement was to begin at 1, we would not even be speaking about a singularity at the birth of the universe: we would rather be looking at some other measurement outside the Plank time (the shortest possible interval of time in cosmological physics)^[2].




_{References and notes:
[1] Big Bang on Wikipedia
[2] the Plank epoch}

Other applications of singularities

In all this, what value could we derive from discussing singularities (and infinities) in connection with origins and existences?

I contend there are several values. For one, it helps us to grasp this fact - that almost all detectable phenomena exist within various spheres and dimensions rather than in one singularity. Consequently, it logically leads on to the understanding that there are various 'infinities' within various dimensions, and not just one infinity within a vector space!

This is a shift from my previous position that there could not possibly be an ‘infintely small’ dimension or existence between ‘0’ and ‘1’. I was dead wrong! Since then, I have grown up within the last few days to reason outside the box and see things differently. The one thing I had thought about was that within any vector space, all values are defined between ‘0’ and ‘1’, so that no matter how long we count a recurring decimal such as . .

0.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999. . .,

. . there's certainly a point at which the transformation becomes a defined ‘1’ for all values of |1|. There - I was dead wrong, and I’m thankful to be challenged enough to modify my views.

Now indeed there are infinities that exist within significantly small vector spaces such that they hold quite huge transformations. I’ve always been fascinated by some physicists' inference in explaining the BB singularity as ‘a point of zero volume, but very high mass, with infinite density’. It sounded like a contradition (if we think locally) - how could ‘zero volume’ at the same time hold ‘infinite density’? I only later came to realise that that kind of question is a misconstruction that takes the physics out of the vector space and arrives at a false image of reality.

The point is not to trail off excitedly about a physics I have very little knowledge of. Rather, with the foregoing as an intro, I’d like some of us to consider certain applications of singularities and infinities in current scientific paradigms and philosophies. In other words (and perhaps in simpler expression), let us consider existence of events and phenomena that exist within other dimensions that we don't encounter every day.

Of Dimensional Existence

We’re all familiar with 1D, 2D, and 3D . . 1-dimension, 2-dimension, 3-dimension, etc. More recently, we began to increasingly hear about other dimensions as well - the 10th and 12th dimensions. Who knows, someone might muse about the 25th dimension someday, and we probably shall then have to either stretch our bandages or retire them for more soothing balms.

The 4th dimension is commonly said to be the dimension of space-time - a combination of three spatial dimensions(length, width, and height) with time. The interesting thing is that cosmologists and astronomists are of the conviction today that time has not always existed, but began to exist at some point in the history of our universe.

This is interesting for me, not so much upon the singularity and infinity indices; but rather as it brings up a lot of other questions that need to be addressed in our collective existence. Some have asked such thought-provoking questions as ‘does time exist apart from matter?’ Some argue that time is independent of matter, and as such it might not make much sense to think about an epoch before ‘time’. However, when dealing with issues about the dimensions of reality, we often tend to think in terms ‘location’ in the 4th dimension - not so much as ‘when’ an event happens, but more about ‘where’ the event is located.

Please don’t lose sight of the point that this is not a thread that attempts to demonstrate the existence of ‘God’ or other deities by mathematical imperatives - you will not find much in what is expressed here as filling that lacuna. Even so, we’re trying to explore existence itself and see the various spheres of reality that lie within our experiences and beyond.

Viaro -

Thank you so much for the foregoing illuminating intros.

Permit me to make a few initial comments, and i think we need to thrash these out before we can have a constructive discussion.

viaro:


. The interesting thing is that cosmologists and astronomists are of the conviction today that time has not always existed, but began to exist at some point in the history of our universe.

Please let us attempt to define that word "time" before going further. I am of the view that Time is a necessary and not contingent factor, and accordingly cannot be created, or come into existence at any point - it is, in my view, self existent, and i am strongly at odds with the assertions that time was created by the Big Bang. I have attmpted to thrash this out before -

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=328837.msg4649034#msg4649034


And also to discuss the nature of Time -

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-327706.0.html

viaro:


I’ve always been fascinated by some physicists' inference in explaining the BB singularity as ‘a point of zero volume, but very high mass, with infinite density’. It sounded like a contradition (if we think locally) - how could ‘zero volume’ at the same time hold ‘infinite density’? I only later came to realise that that kind of question is a misconstruction that takes the physics out of the vector space and arrives at a false image of reality.

I would like to comment that i do not believe that matter existed within the singularity that formed the basis of the big bang. Only infinite energy could have existed, and at that, not necessarily a material form of energy. We will discuss this, yes?

viaro:


Some infer that the singularity = 'God'.

That inference, as we have noted elsewhere, is froth with serious problems, which would not be helpful to reproduce here. However, perhaps we should note that the singularity did not create the universe, in as much as that 'singularity' is in itself dependent on a condition.

Viaro, i must say that i disagree with the statement that that singularity itself is dependent on any condition(s). Aat least not within my view of what a singularity is. I would view it as a necessary abstract empty point, and such emptiness requires no cause. I am sure i needn't regurgitate why i believe that that empty point can amount to somethingness. But given its essential nature, i cannot see or agree that it is dependent on any condition as i regard it as conditionless state undefined by the existence of ANY quantity.

I realize that in my thinking I am working against much of scientific thinking, and aspects of the Penrose Hawkin Theorem as well as general relativity. In the thread I cited above, KAG castigated me and was very cutting in his remarks because of this. But please I reiterate that in discussing this matter with me, I would very much continue to wander outside, and indeed in many cases, postulate contrary to scientific thought, and this I will do with reason and philosophy.

Anybody have an email for KAG? I would like him to join this discussion.

The beauty of any discussion is the point at which views can be challenged, modified and lubricated for further engagements. That beauty is well served by your rejoinder, Deep Sight.

Let me highlight my recognition of your perspective which informs your position in this discussion:

Deep Sight:

I realize that in my thinking I am working against much of scientific thinking, and aspects of the Penrose Hawkin Theorem as well as general relativity. In the thread I cited above, KAG castigated me and was very cutting in his remarks because of this. But please I reiterate that in discussing this matter with me, I would very much continue to wander outside, and indeed in many cases, postulate contrary to scientific thought, and this I will do with reason and philosophy.

That is all fine with me; and no, I would not be so presumptive as to offer cutting remarks to any discussant - it would terribly be out-of-place for me to do so. It's my opinion that there is value in much of what we may all share here with one another: some may be outright wrong (as I acknowledge in my previous views about infinities); some may be thought-provoking; a few may be necessary to crack us up with some comic relief. All things being well, we hope to enjoy our time together.

Now, the body of your comments -

Please let us attempt to define that word "time" before going further. I am of the view that Time is a necessary and not contingent factor, and accordingly cannot be created, or come into existence at any point - it is, in my view, self existent, and i am strongly at odds with the assertions that time was created by the Big Bang. I have attmpted to thrash this out before -

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=328837.msg4649034#msg4649034

I'm not so sure that time was created by the Big Bang either; which if that was what I'd stated at some point, then my apologies. No, time was not created by the BB, in as much as one could argue that the BB describes something and is not the thing itself. Whatever there were (matter, energy, space, etc) are described by the BB rather than having been created by it.

But even so, there seems to be a slice of surprise in your assumptions as well - that time is self-existent. It would not be my wish to stretch this beyond what you meant; but if time was self-existent, would that not suggest that what you call 'God' loses that same quality of self-existence to another quality or entity (time) which you qualify by self-existence?

I would like to comment that i do not believe that matter existed within the singularity that formed the basis of the big bang. Only infinite energy could have existed, and at that, not necessarily a material form of energy. We will discuss this, yes?

Yes.

Viaro, i must say that i disagree with the statement that that singularity itself is dependent on any condition(s). At least not within my view of what a singularity is. I would view it as a necessary abstract empty point, and such emptiness requires no cause. I am sure i needn't regurgitate why i believe that that empty point can amount to somethingness. But given its essential nature, i cannot see or agree that it is dependent on any condition as i regard it as conditionless state undefined by the existence of ANY quantity.

Well noted. I could contain your perspective on the basis of the highlighted about your view of what a singularity is. Although in the broader scheme of things (and within the working definitions of the example of the Big Bang), it would be near impossible to sustain the idea that the singularity could not be dependent on any set of conditions. Not even general relativity? Well, I don't know. . but I'd scratch my head a lil bit more on that while we're musing on these things.

Anybody have an email for KAG? I would like him to join this discussion.

Goody! As many are welcome to rub minds.

We need to progress this discussion.

Where is KAG? Can anybody draw his attention. He needs to come tell us why time was created at the moment of the Big Bang.

Deep Sight:

We need to progress this discussion.

Absolutely. . and in due course I shall post a few more. All are welcome to share their thoughts.

Where is KAG? Can anybody draw his attention. He needs to come tell us why time was created at the moment of the Big Bang.

Hmm, that would be interesting.

Deep Sight:

We need to progress this discussion.

Where is KAG? Can anybody draw his attention. He needs to come tell us why time was created at the moment of the Big Bang.

"Created" was certainly not the term I used. To refer back to the previous thread (you know, the one where I was hoping you'd explain things like "totality of time", etc followed by evidence or data for something of the sort), I wrote (amongst other things):

"To be clear, the reference point of time as we know it is this universe, and is affected by the big bang because as far can be told right now, we discover Planck time and then "no time" as we head backwards. Essentially, time and space are bound together."

Of course, if one is proposing a time free universe then the argument takes on a different shape.

KAG is back from exile. . , . . , after absconding from answering posers on evolution

KAG, thank you for your thoughts. I was hoping you'd be somewhat enticed to drop a few lines in this thread - even if to correct any impressions that some of us are simply unaware of. Could you please (if it's not so much trouble) post me a link of your previous discussion with Deep Sight so I could take a peep? That would be great, thanks.

Or, Deep Sight. . could you do me that fav of pointing me to the thread as regards the above? Would be great, thanks.

Here it is -

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=328837.msg4649034#msg4649034

Thanks, Deep Sight. I just took a peep and noted it. . will settle down and read a bit more.

Time was started by the big bang and may have even began after the inflation of space

.

KAG - This is the statement that i had a problem with. I am aware that this is the standard proposition of current scientific thinking.

However you need to note carefully what i stated:

^^^^ @ KAG - What do you say to the following suggestions -

1. That the time you refer to as being created by the Big Bang simply refers to measurable time as per the finite human mind? And not the totality of time itself, which is infinite, and cannot cease to be.

2. What if at this very second, as we speak, another big bang is going off outside our universe, bringing another universe into being? Do you not see the possibility that our Universe is existing within an already existing larger "Space" and that every new "bang" that occurs is a bang within already existent time and space? To crystalize this for you: Let's imagine a civilization on a far off planet within this universe that was so primitive that they thought that their galaxy was all there was to the universe. For them, they would imagine time began when their galaxy was formed. They would not realize that their galaxy was just one within a universe already existing in a steady state of time! So i ask you: what if our universe is just like that: existing within ONE larger MULTIVERSE! If that is the case, surely, time could not be said to be created by the bang that made this universe. Rather, time would be an already existing steady state..

Does the idea of infinite time mean anything to you as opposed to the idea of finite time (your big-bang-time).

Nice thread.Maybe i could add my thoughts.

Actually time is really not anything! Time is not a thing to be created or not.All references to time are based on the universe.That is,the measurement of change within the universe from the plank time.
Therefore it makes no sense to say Time is eternal or infinite.Since time does not have the property of existence in the way matter of things exists.

And anyway,the big question is not even whether the universe had a beginning,(though all evidence suggestss it had),the deeper question is, Why something rather than nothing exists? Why is there a universe rather than no universe.

Easylogic! Ther eyou are again! Brilliant surmise as always from you!

I think that is really a great question: why something instead of nothing?

Why all this wonder, why all this power, this majestic universe?

Maybe the atheists can reflect on that.

Hallo folks. Good talk going on here. .  and heart warming questions.

Yes, the question of 'why something instead of nothing?' is one that many people have dared to ask in one form or another. It became increasingly public when it was expressed by one of America's rock bands, Jane's Addiction, in the 1999 release, Polar Bear. But it's not only musicians that have been asking that question and seeking an answer to it and its many other queries - it has become a major scientific enquiry.

Do we know why something exists rather than nothing at all? No, most of us do not know or understand why - at least, not in the sense of why the universe even exists. But do we even know why nothing should have existed in the first place before something began to exist?

Can I stretch it a little further? Why is existence rather than non-existence?

These are questions not for the faint-hearted or the rascally. Perhaps they are questions which may not be adequately answered in the history of our humanity and intelligence. . or maybe I'm wrong! I would rather propose it is a mystery that refines the way we think about our own existence, and from there try to understand other forms of existence and realities, and also what necessary roles we are supposed to play in existence itself.

Thanks Deepsight and vairo,


Leibniz the german mathematician (17th century)actually asked this question back in the ancient ages,why something exists rather than nothing,and it thus led to the formulation of the leibnizian cosmological argument.

As a theist i can answer why something exists rather than nothing.An eternal God who necessarily exists willed to create the universe.

But for atheist,this question is simply impossible to answer.An atheist cannot say that the universe necessarily exists since we know that all matter which m,akes up the universe is contingent,therefore it follows that the universe is contingent.

By contingent we mean that something can," not exist".i.e we can think of instances where a particular thing would not have existed.The big bang is a prime example of a contingent thing.
Necessary things are those things that exist in every possible scenario or world.For example numbers or logic.It is impossible to think of a universe or possible world where 1+1 is not equal to 2.

therefore philosophers generally agree that things like numbers and logic are necessary.

Therefore the atheist is in a dilemma,he's left with a universe which exists contingently with no reason at all.

He/she is at a loss to explain why there was a bang,rather than no bang,in fact why was there a singularity in the first place.

Most atheist will appeal to the multiverse theory and say that our universe might have been created by a black hole in another universe or something of he sort,but this just pushes he problem a step ahead.Why does a multiverse exist rather than no multiverse?

easylogic:


Thanks Deepsight and vairo,


Leibniz the german mathematician (17th century)actually asked this question back in the ancient ages,why something exists rather than nothing,and it thus led to the formulation of the leibnizian cosmological argument.

As a theist i can answer why something exists rather than nothing.An eternal God who necessarily exists willed to create the universe.

But for atheist,this question is simply impossible to answer.An atheist cannot say that the universe necessarily exists since we know that all matter which m,akes up the universe is contingent,therefore it follows that the universe is contingent.

By contingent we mean that something can," not exist".i.e we can think of instances where a particular thing would not have existed.The big bang is a prime example of a contingent thing.
Necessary things are those things that exist in every possible scenario or world.For example numbers or logic.It is impossible to think of a universe or possible world where 1+1 is not equal to 2.

therefore philosophers generally agree that things like numbers and logic are necessary.

Therefore the atheist is in a dilemma,he's left with a universe which exists contingently with no reason at all.

He/she is at a loss to explain why there was a bang,rather than no bang,in fact why was there a singularity in the first place.

Most atheist will appeal to the multiverse theory and say that our universe might have been created by a black hole in another universe or something of he sort,but this just pushes he problem a step ahead.Why does a multiverse exist rather than no multiverse?

Hello Easylogic, I think that you are presuming that there has to be a mechanism for everything. Apart from the fact that we instinctive believe that events are brought about by a mechanism there is no actual proof. Why can events not spontaneously occur? Why must there be a mechanism (or process) that brought it about?

Are necessity and contingency really mutually exclusive?