Far out cosmology (Introduction)

by David Turell , Saturday, February 08, 2014, 01:42 (3940 days ago) @ George Jelliss

George: I have the feeling of banging my head against a wall of incomprehension here!-It is my fault. I understand your points completely, but I am not explaining my philosophic approach so that you understand it. 
> 
> George Nowhere does Stenger mention the origin of the universe being "eternal".-I know that also, but from my point of view that is what his theory of origin implies, as I will explain below 
> 
> George: If we trace the universe back then we get to a primordial state where neither time nor distance can be measured and therefore space-time no longer exists.-I agree. Very logical.
> 
> George: Trying to discuss this primordial state as if it existed within some extended Newtonian universe where time and space still exist seems to be where you are both going wrong. There is no "before" or "outside" to the primordial state.-Again agreed. But something caused the primordial state.
> 
> George: Furthermore the primordial state has no mass or energy, or more precisely it has zero energy. However energy can exist in both positive and negative forms. So zero energy can be a balance of positive and negative energies. -This is where we part ways. I follow the reeasoning of Ed Feser, a philosophy professor, one of his books: The Last Superstition is on this subject of ours, which is really a discussion of cause and effect. He is a former atheist who is
now a Catholic and closely follows the reasoning of Aristotle and St. Thomas.-Nothingness is the key point. Pure nothingness is an absolute void. And the discussion has to start there. Pure nothingness is an acceptable concept. There can be such a non-existent nothing. On the other hand, as Leibniz pointed asked, why is there anything? Each effect must have a cause, but as stated by Aquinas: What does not have existence on its own must have a cause. Hume's attack on this principle of causality is entirely refuted in Feser's book.- Your description of equal amounts of positive and negative energy equalling zero is correct, but it is zero, not absolutely nothing and the whole equation is something. It represents two types of existing energy, not nothingness. I am saying there must be the total absence of energy to get rid of my insistence that something eternal has to exist. But you and Stenger use two forms of energy to create the universe. Therefore, you must accept the fact that energy (plus and minus, if you wish) has always existed. There never has been nothingness. This satisfies Liebniz' question and tells us that somehow our universe, made of energy appeared. It offers a more coherent viewpoint than we poofed out of pure nothingness. That is impossible. -And that is all I am claiming. There has always been energy, before our spacetime. It is timeless energy. I can go no further with surety. My own supposition about the attributes of that energy as a universal consciousness is my own Turell version of religion, as I left agnosticism. I think organized religion and its wishful thinking is all wet. -I hope that clarifies where my thinking leads me. And I very much appreciate your discussion with me.