Quote:
Originally Posted by N0B0DY  I can relate the slowing down of rotation to the gathering of matter, but we have to explain why the galaxies are rotating to begin with. I prefer to piece together causes more than piecing together conclusions based on a priori causes. |
Nobody,
The short answer is that, while not everything is based on a priori causes, our universe is based on a priori cause: at one point in time, the infinite universe came into being. I see a lot of excellent information delivered by Geoff Haselhurst — his proclamations are indeed very interesting — but I disagree on giving Space a stature of all-importance. If it weren't for Time to
start out the sequence, Space could not have become ruler. From an overall perspective that means that space is just one part of the whole, and can therefore not be seen as the one aspect on which to build final theories. Our universe is an a priori location. The final answer must contain language that includes this fact.
I am not a believer, and though you may find it weird that I mention this all of a sudden, it cuts to the essence of this conversation. I do need to explain myself here better, because for me an atheist is a believer already. Anyone who believes that a certain position delivers the absolute truth is in my eyes a believer. An atheists believes that there is no god. Such person cannot know whether there is a god or not, so proclaiming to hold the truth that there is no god, is evidence for me already that this person is holding on to a belief.
Alarm bells ring when Geoff Haselhurst mentions in his first 'reason' (
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Most-S...ry-Reality.htm) that "the most simple theory must be founded on One thing (substance) existing with properties." He has lost me in this very first sentence, already. I am
not a believer, and he invites me to believe that the most simple theory must be founded on one thing. I deliver mathematical evidence that states the opposite: singularity does not exist in our materialized universe; there is no single piece of groundwork (not a single basis) on which the materialized universe started to exist or endures.
There are only a few places in which I accept singularity, and that is
1/ in the abstract (such as the word 'family' encompassing all, while the actual members together are not of a single nature),
2/ with the phenomenon of nothing (nothing is found in singular positions (it is found in plural positions too, but I am trying to create a list here of where I do see acceptable singularity), and
3/ in religion (where reality is considered as part of a single exclusive answer). As you can read from my reply above, I find religion the least attractive of the three. Mainly because it makes prisoners of otherwise smart people. As a positive point, I would say, religion can help one move from a lost situation to a rather acceptable situation, and even into a position from which to help others.
The story in Greek mythology of Nobody being captured by a Cyclops and held in a cave with his crew is actually a liberation story, in which we can see ourselves in the role of the hero. It is easy to see a single issue as the most important issue, but all we then do is give in to that singular vision of something as being all there is to it. Yet in reality we are then caught in a cave, where reality as reality is no longer seen.
The second spot of singularity I find acceptable (more than religion) is the spot of nothing, yet I see many getting lost in this spot for it is often not very tangible. I have no problems with people describing the importance of nothing, but what I notice is that it, too, can become a religion; as if all answers are all of a sudden given when placing nothing in the spot of god. I find it, nevertheless, an answer that is close to the truth but also besides the truth if not understood correctly.
The third spot, and the one I wish were the only spot, is the
abstract because here we can find real answers (with names or mathematics) that do not have to be true themselves. Eamples: a nation is not an existing entity, but once created it can be all-powerful; math is nothing we can eat, unless it is applied to actual matter and things.
My answer is that, even when everything comes from one origin, the materialized place we find ourselves in, is an a priori place. I must conclude from the evidence that something came before, and that 'before' is not included in everything. Should I ask you to bring this conversation back to nothing? Can you explain for me, once more, in language I can understand, how nothing is central in your view of the universe!