That is a rationalistic fallacy. As has already been explained, time is in the universe, not the other way around. It pertains to finite intervals of change. Existence -- the philosophical "universe" -- is "eternal", not of "infinite" age "in time": It has no "beginning" or "end"; those terms do not apply to it.

It is a different matters for particular forms of the _material_ universe such as planet and galaxies.

A singularity in equations of physics is a "problem" but does not mean the theory literally "breaks down there". It isn't broken, it doesn't apply at all there, except as an indication of a rate of increase approaching it, because there are no infinities in reality. The problem is to understand what the equation does signify near a singularity and what else is needed. This is in the realm of hypotheses and theory formation, not a dispute among scientists on what a theory means. If you don't know what it means, then to that extent you don't have a theory.

Laws of physics "as we understand them" is a redundancy. They are abstract, conceptual formulations describing and explaining what is observed as the way reality behaves, not something intrinsic to reality, independent of human consciousness. Nor are they figments of our imagination. They are objective principles as our form of awareness of reality, neither intrinsic nor subjective.

This is a forum for Ayn Rand's philosophy of reason, not for quoting sacred text and rationalizing the supernatural.

Theories can lead to designs for experimental prediction and observations, and when the observations appear to validate the predictions and especially Future Observations, 'Theories' have lots of value and are not 'absurd' at all.

Yes, theories are NOT 'facts' but again, science is about making observations to discover whether Theories have predictive value. If they do, they persist; if they don't they're modified or discarded.

Where was the dense mass Before The Big Bang? Too many fairly impossible assumptions to list in order to even approach that 'discussion.' Did the mass even 'have to exist somewhere'? If space-time Began with A Big Bang (or The Big Bang,) the concept of 'somewhere' is between moot and unimaginable (so far.)

"If God Spoke The Universe Into Existence..." how about elaborating on "Spoke"? What language, what frequency? Sound? Light? Wavelength?

:)

There is no such thing as "more perfect" knowledge. Either you understand it or you don't. Scope and precision can be improved, but not knowledge does not become "more perfect" towards an impossible to reach end, commonly thought of as the equivalent of somehow wrapping your consciousness around reality for infinite insight.

That science is never settled means that there is always more to learn, and that anyone can question anything as long as he has reason to without being subjected to the Inquisition. It doesn't mean that nothing is ever known for certain as a base on which to build further knowledge.

in this case the "conclusions" challenged are those in hypotheses, not something established as true. I regard this field of mathematical cosmology to be highly rationalistic and without much value as it is currently pursued.

All "prophets" are "fools", and so are the people who follow them. It isn't how one obtains knowledge, but it has nothing to do with teachers. Knowledge is a correct identification of reality, regardless of whether it is original or explained by a teacher and understood by the student. No philosophy of a "prophet" is more right than another because under the method of following prophets by faith there is no knowledge at all.

its an individuals choice to pursue any philosophy, including objectivism. Lets not place one mightier than the other. All are simply life philosophies, no?

Rands philosophy (odd choice of words considering) stops at death...no need for room.

Yes, you have to act on the knowledge you have -- we can't do anything else -- but that doesn't leave it all open as "knowledge" without objective standards and proper methods. Making a mistake is one thing, and it must be corrected when discovered, but knowledge is an expansion on what we know, not a sequence of exploded fallacies unearthed by observations refuting what you thought you knew. The certainty you have is a based on the context of your knowledge and how you attained it, not an assumed omniscience without regard to context. Part of the correct method is to reject claims without evidence as irrelevant. I suspect that you agree with that.

It's a fact that arbitrary assertions are cognitively worthless, just as if they had never been said. That is all it takes to reject it out of hand.

One cannot even begin to discuss whether something might be fact without explanation of the validity of the concepts employed, their source, and how they are being used.

I think you meant that a creator versus the random is the false alternative, so rejection of the metaphysical random not imply a creator.

He didn't quote it as an "ultimate authority" or sacred text. He cited it as a source of explanation and understanding. It requires a rational hierarchy of concepts to follow from one sentence to the next. No floating abstractions, no stolen concepts, no rationalization, etc.

There is no "room" in Ayn Rand's philosophy of reason -- or in science -- to embrace the supernatural.

"Individual choice" in arbitrary assertions about metaphysics is subjectivism.

Sigh, I'll try to recreate some of what I had written before an undetectable gremlin took control of my hand and clicked on something that obliterated all evidence of my claimed genius. It will probably be a pale reflection of the original. It is my habit to copy what I'm working on to the clipboard at regular intervals - a substitute for the autosave safeguards against calamity that many desktop applications have. But I hadn't done that.

I was ruminating on the statement that you cannot really prove something true and wondering if that claim was true. My high school geometry class was dedicated to proofs of theorems. A 300's level course in logic, given by my school's math department and taken as an elective toward earning my BS in Engineering, was loaded with proofs of theorems. I can't count the number of proofs presented by the lecturers over 4 semesters of calculus. Is a theorem different from a theory? I haven't the energy to refer to a dictionary right now. Creation and loss of the Silmarils has left me empty!

Is there a point where Newton's theories on the laws of motion and gravitation are proven? Do we need to wait for the theoretical infinite troupe of typing monkeys toiling to produce the collected works of Shakespeare, temporarily reassigned to disproving theories, to finish their task of inventing and testing every possible experiment to disprove Newton's theories or have we satisfied ourselves with PROOF that they are correct?

It's a sincere question and I'm fascinated to ponder, if a theory can't be proven true then can anything be proven true and can we ever know anything with 100% certainty? I can't quote AR or Objectivist philosophy nor refer anyone to a certain book or page off the top of my head, but I expect she had a lot to say on it. I have a sneaking suspicion that AR did show that it's possible to know something with 100% certainty.

I've heard often and I think it's accepted that you can't prove a negative. I mentioned the undetectable gremlin earlier for this reason. A course offered by the Philosophy department called Philosophy and Logic 101 (a free "A" for computer engineering majors, even this one who tended to sit in the front row and fall asleep while gazing out the window at his dorm where lunch awaited - to the unexpected amusement of the teacher) discussed one day the philosophical meaning of the statement "there is an undetectable demon inside my watch." The conclusion was that it was a meaningless statement and logically invalid. And any honest atheist, including Hitchens, Dawkins and Penn Gillette, will matter-of-factly admit that it is logically impossible to prove that god does not exist. Such a proof of non-existence is not merely difficult, nor impossible for practical reasons, it is simply logically impossible to prove lack of existence.

Now I've lost track of whether I've gone from rational to rambling. My internal safety valves say it's time to shut up.

Thanks, Maritimus. I like what you write, too. The willful actors I had in mind are human beings. No supernatural agents required. :)

Excellent, CTY.... everything you said may be true.
Or not.
Conclusion/Benefit/Contribution = ?
:)

lying.... not laying.
:)

Enjoy your beliefs, AJ, as I enjoy mine. I like the idea of afterlife and God and all that, but I choose to not 'live my life' based on any kind of belief or strong conviction that either one DOES exist.

A wise friend of mine said, some three or more decades ago...

"If, right here and now, I could say something that completely convinced you that God Exists.... OR that God Doesn't Exist....
And out of that Insight, you concluded that you would/should Change The Way You're Living Your Life....

Then maybe you should take a hard look Right Now at How You're Living Your Life."

Enjoy that one for a while... I certainly have.

sometimes... just like with other theories.. :)

... been there, done that... beware the <esc> key and try to remember to do a <ctrl>-A / <ctrl>-C every once in a while, particularly just before clicking "reply" or "submit" or whatever... oh, the hours of wit and wisdom I've lost by forgetting that... My sympathies!

And papers like the linked reference tug at the hem of the assumption that 'there was a Beginning, before which There Was Nothing.'

Sure, IF there was No Beginning, the conclusion 'there can be no ending' might be an accurate conclusion, but the Basis of the conclusion 'no ending' is that of an Assumption which has not yet been Proven.

See the conflict there?

So, what WERE you smoking?

I never said science was settled. In fact I've been very much saying what this article implies for many years. That theory is just that and that teaching theory as fact is absurd.There is no more proof to suggest a big bang than there is to say that God spoke the universe into existence (resonance has its creation theory too mind you).

Perhaps its a human limitation but I cannot imagine anything forever existing, even God...everything has its origin. That dense mass for the big bang theory had to exist somewhere, where was that somewhere? If it didn't exist anywhere (because there was to "where" literally) was it suddenly thought into existence? If so by whom, by what?

We can agree to disagree and I'm fine with that. But I have to admit the declaration I AM takes on an interesting tone after this revelation.

Time is a human construct...even so stars are born and die (phase), a clockwork of sorts. How can we measure/date anything if the universe is eternal? Its quite compelling to think about.

http://www.plusaf.com/linkedin/linked-in...