Language and Logic (General)

by dhw, Tuesday, April 08, 2014, 15:49 (3670 days ago) @ George Jelliss

GEORGE: But by my definition of universe, the universe IS everything, including time. Therefore the universe cannot have "come into being" by any process requiring time, and so cannot have a cause.

That depends on whether your definition is correct.-Dhw: ...the problem here is your basic assumption that the beginning of our universe was the beginning of time and so there could be no "before". You may be right, but that is pure speculation. 
GEORGE: No it is a logical consequence of my definition of universe. We are talking Language and Logic here.-Indeed, and that is why I started this thread. Your definition provides a logical case for there being no preceding cause. Here is a different definition: "The aggregate of all existing matter, energy, and space" (Collins). This is far more neutral and allows for the question "How did it come into existence?" You have used language ("the universe IS everything, including time") to exclude such a question.
 
Dhw: I am presenting an alternative speculation, which reverses your logic.
GEORGE: You are changing the assumptions of the argument. You are implying that the universe in your sense is only a part of some larger universe. So presumably that universe is in turn a part of another universe. For you it's Turtles all the way down again!-I'm not implying anything, though that is one possibility. I'm pointing out that your speculation (there is no "before") is no more valid (or invalid) than the speculation that there was a "before". What that "before" consisted of will be the subject of further speculations (e.g. David's God, earlier universes, energy doing nothing, energy doing something).-Dhw: The North Pole is not an activity. That a finite piece of matter comes to a finite end, as at the North Pole, is perfectly logical. 
GEORGE: The North Pole is an analogy or metaphor to illustrate the "Time pole" of the universe where t = 0.-Sounds scientific, but as an analogy its validity depends entirely on your questionable definition of the universe.-Dhw: Can you tell me of anything in existence concerning which it is a known fact that it does not have a cause?
GEORGE: I'm sure lots of things happen without a cause. Isn't it one of the axioms of quantum theory? But if there is a zero of time then it follows BY LOGIC that there can be nothing preceding it and therefore no cause.-"If" is the operative word. Similarly, if the universe had a cause, it follows BY LOGIC that there must have been something before the universe. In both cases, language is being used to create its own seemingly convincing logic, disguising the fact that the basic premise is pure speculation based on no known facts.