firefighter
Registered Senior Member
Which came first, the universe or the laws which govern the universe?
Which came first?
- Thread starter firefighter
- Start date
ConsequentAtheist
Registered Senior Member
Laws govern nothing.
Laws are nothing more than well established theories that have resisted all attempts at falsification. Theories are nothing more than testable explanations of phenomena. Explanations do not preceed that which is being explained.
firefighter
Registered Senior Member
CA,
In physics we hear about "laws that govern" such as the laws that govern planetary motion. Do you think the complex and orderly nature of such phenomena developed randomly, by chance, and came into existence after the universe came to be? Or, does it appear to you that such phenomena was planned for the universe to exist the way it does?
Something else?
In physics we hear about "laws that govern" such as the laws that govern planetary motion. Do you think the complex and orderly nature of such phenomena developed randomly, by chance, and came into existence after the universe came to be? Or, does it appear to you that such phenomena was planned for the universe to exist the way it does?
Something else?
Great topic FF
I have often pondered that very question until my mind has gone numb, much like a butt on a bleacher watching a dull baseball game.
Without action by an outside force or some manifested volition from within, the natural state of matter is to be at rest. However, existence must occur before consciousness can happen (then again if consciousness doesn't first exist it isn't there to begin with - a metaphysical axiom that could have unfathomable ramifications.
I have often pondered that very question until my mind has gone numb, much like a butt on a bleacher watching a dull baseball game.
Without action by an outside force or some manifested volition from within, the natural state of matter is to be at rest. However, existence must occur before consciousness can happen (then again if consciousness doesn't first exist it isn't there to begin with - a metaphysical axiom that could have unfathomable ramifications.
How about -
The universe is an inevitable result of the interactions intrinsic to reality. There can be no first since each is a dependent manifestation of the other. I.e. if the universe did not exist then reality could not be perceived and if reality did not exist then the universe could not be perceived.
Laws are simply our attempt at describing reality.
The universe is an inevitable result of the interactions intrinsic to reality. There can be no first since each is a dependent manifestation of the other. I.e. if the universe did not exist then reality could not be perceived and if reality did not exist then the universe could not be perceived.
Laws are simply our attempt at describing reality.
ConsequentAtheist
Registered Senior Member
Vernacular.
No, but nice try.
firefighter
Registered Senior Member
Re: Great topic FF
Yeah. I know what you mean. I came across some literature yesterday that talked about people who literally went insane after delving too deeply into similar questions. Sorry.
O.K., then. It sounds like you're saying that there must be some type of cause and effect relationship.
What if consciousness was a separate dimension?
Yeah. I know what you mean. I came across some literature yesterday that talked about people who literally went insane after delving too deeply into similar questions. Sorry.
O.K., then. It sounds like you're saying that there must be some type of cause and effect relationship.
However, existence must occur before consciousness can happen (then again if consciousness doesn't first exist it isn't there to begin with - a metaphysical axiom that could have unfathomable ramifications.
What if consciousness was a separate dimension?
firefighter
Registered Senior Member
O.K. What interactions resulted in the universe? Here it sounds like you're describing a cause and effect relationship.
O.K. Here it sounds like you're taking an acausal position.
When was the universe first perceived? Where does consciousness fit in the model for you?
Is your reality causal or acausal?
ConsequentAtheist
Registered Senior Member
A Little IDer Plays Socrates
What if you stop playing your tiresome little game, take a position and defend it?
What if circles tasted better than triangles, but were much louder than squares?
What if you stop playing your tiresome little game, take a position and defend it?
Re: Great topic FF
A metaphysical axiom that could have unfathomable ramifications.:
Which came first, the universe or the laws which govern the universe?
This question is a falsehood deception non sequitur....both came in at the same time....2 equal sounds.... one created the matter and one created the thought..both consciousness and matter existed as sound...
dominic
Originally posted by Bridge
I have often pondered that very question until my mind has gone numb, much like a butt on a bleacher watching a dull baseball game.
Without action by an outside force or some manifested volition from within, the natural state of matter is to be at rest. However, existence must occur before consciousness can happen (then again if consciousness doesn't first exist it isn't there to begin with - a metaphysical axiom that could have unfathomable ramifications.
A metaphysical axiom that could have unfathomable ramifications.:
Which came first, the universe or the laws which govern the universe?
This question is a falsehood deception non sequitur....both came in at the same time....2 equal sounds.... one created the matter and one created the thought..both consciousness and matter existed as sound...
dominic
So that was a satisfying answer?
After you
No after you
No I insist, after you
No, no, no, after you
Okay, we'll both go in together
and One ring to rule them all.....
But the Ring was lost. It fell into the Great River, Anduin,
and vanished. For Isuldur was marching north along the
east banks of the River, and near the Gladden Fields he
was waylaid by the Orcs of the Mountains, and almost
all his folk were slain. He leaped into the waters, but the
Ring slipped from his finger as he swam, and then the
Orcs saw him and killed him with arrows.
After you
No after you
No I insist, after you
No, no, no, after you
Okay, we'll both go in together
and One ring to rule them all.....
But the Ring was lost. It fell into the Great River, Anduin,
and vanished. For Isuldur was marching north along the
east banks of the River, and near the Gladden Fields he
was waylaid by the Orcs of the Mountains, and almost
all his folk were slain. He leaped into the waters, but the
Ring slipped from his finger as he swam, and then the
Orcs saw him and killed him with arrows.
firefighter
Registered Senior Member
Originally posted by ribot
wait a minute (i'm slow). are we talkin about the laws of physics here? maybe the laws of physics change over time. maybe there were no laws in the beginning and they started to come when humans so much wanted it.
ribot,
I was talking about the observed phenomena that the "laws" attempt to explain and yes, from a human standpoint, the explanations do change over time.
firefighter
Registered Senior Member
Re: A Little IDer Plays Socrates
I'm willing to defend causality or acausality. Which position would you like me to give to you? We can debate one side each for a number of posts and then both switch to the opposing viewpoint for another round of debate if you'd like.
Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
What if you... take a position and defend it?
I'm willing to defend causality or acausality. Which position would you like me to give to you? We can debate one side each for a number of posts and then both switch to the opposing viewpoint for another round of debate if you'd like.
firefighter
Registered Senior Member
Re: Re: Great topic FF
What is the basis for this opinion?
What is the basis for this opinion?
Actually, the laws describe how the fundamental forces of nature (strong nuclear, weak nuclear, electromagnetic, and gravity) energy, and matter interact. Thus far, we have found that as we approach the conditions of the origin of the Universe (Big-Bang) three of these four forces were combined (SN, WN, EM), theorists and experimenters have been working on proving that at an even earlier point all four forces were combined in a single force. As it stands, the 'orderly' nature of... well nature seems to be a natural result of the expansion of the Universe from a singularity. Since time is intrinsically tied to space any hypothesis as to the cause of the 'big bang' is free of any temporal restriction.
As to causality, quantum physics has given us some rather surprising facts to deal with. It seems that nothing is not really nothing. There is an energy level at the ground state which can fluctuate, causing a pair of particles to simply appear out of nothing (ref: virtual particles, and vacuum fluctuations). Most of these particles quickly return to nothing but there are some theoretical conditions by which they might remain. This and other facets of quantum physics show that, rather than being directly causal, most of what occurs at subatomic levels is probabilistic in nature.
Which makes no sense at all. Sound is vibrations through matter. So how could sound exist before matter?
Actually, no. Two opposite or, more properly, inverse sounds create silence. A concept known as deconstructive interference which is used in active sound cancellation devices. Of course, this is all still moot as you need to address the problem above.
~Raithere