My response wasn’t at all an admission that it doesn’t imply what I want it to. And your post was poorly worded to begin with. I don’t hold to the first because it makes no sense to say nothing at all existed. Your confused wording of the first choice made it unacceptable. So there wasn’t any real choice to begin with.
And I think Vilenkin is very clear on his position, that the universe had a beginning of it’s existence. And I am more and more convinced that the Copenhagen interpretation is just wrong, and the pilot wave theory is the correct interpretation. And it’s compatible with both classical and relativistic mechanics. So if pilot wave theory is correct, that would eliminate @PdotdQ’s objection in that thread. And unless he has a way to explain how mechanical formulas in physics can be used as evidence in an abductive inference, I am confident that pilot wave is correct.
And I think I was very clear, contrary to what @PdotdQ seems to hold to, that I didn’t agree with the idea that the BGV theorem couldn’t establish a universe with a beginning. And I think I put forth plenty of good reasons for my position. Coupled with the fact of what I now know about pilot wave theory, and am persuaded about what I view as what qualifies as evidence in an abductive argument, I’m even more sure about my position.
No. My understanding of what Vilenkin and others are claiming is that the universe had a beginning event. However, unless you’re talking about a universe that existed in a static state and then at a particular moment “burst” into an expansion, which Vilenkin claims from the standpoint of physics is not an option, that’s not the issue that you’ve raised.
It’s that the universe has always existed in time, and by implication always existed period, even though it had a beginning to its existence. That’s how I understand your argument. But it’s logically incoherent to say the universe had a beginning to its existence yet it always existed which I’ve pointed out several times now.
His argument, as far as I can tell, is that the universe had a first event which would imply where all of physical reality came into existence. So where the first event does not exist, there is no physical reality, i.e. no universe.
Yes I do. I would say from our conversation that I’m beginning to wonder if you don’t.
Umm, I am talking here particularly about an abductive inference. An abductive inference is just that, an inference from relevant evidence, and in this case objective and verifiable observation.
But arguing that even though the universe always existed only for all of time, and had a first moment of that existence a finite time ago, only works if you deny a beginning to that existence.
Because if they began to exist they therefor had to not exist in order to begin to exist, unless you want to deny that’s true in spite of all the evidence all around us from which we can inductively infer that it is true, and for which logic necessitates it to be true.
And to deny a beginning event is to deny what all the evidence points to as pointed out by both Vilenkin and Hawking. And a beginning event implies a beginning of when the effects of the event came into existence. So if what you’re doing is denying the universe began to exist, then you’re back to arguing for an eternal universe, which seems to be a minority position these days.
No, I mean the first moment of physical time, i.e., the beginning of physical time.
A period at which nothing existed is a logical impossibility. For out of nothing, comes nothing. The argument is that all the evidence points to a first physical event, which I can’t tell anymore if you agree to or not. I would guess not in order to make any sense of what you’re arguing.
It follows logically that whatever begins to exist would have had to not exist in order for it to begin to exist. It had to have both existed and not existed in order to have a beginning. If it always existed it would not be able to begin to exist.
What I think is your position, that the universe began to exist, but always existed–implied by the fact that it always exited in time, is just logically incoherent which I’ve showed over and over again.
Yet you still insist on arguing for it, at least if I’m understanding correctly what you’re argument is.
So if I understand correctly what you’re saying, to infer a beginning to the universe would in no way imply that the universe began to exist? If so, I just think that’s obviously not true. I think most reasonable people would beg to differ with you. If you’re saying that we don’t need to invoke that implication, then I would say you’re just falling back on a brute fact as your argument.
Yes, and as far as I can tell, they are rules which inform. And you can’t do science without those rules. And as I understand it, following those rules is what provides us with knowledge about things.
If you’re saying that the universe had a beginning, i.e., began to exist, which is what a beginning implies, yet always existed because it always existed in time, it tells me that your position is logically incoherent and pretty much just nonsense.
Physics tells us nothing about anything outside of physical existence because that’s outside of what physics can inform us about.
So to summarize, I would argue that @Rumraket is basically arguing in a convoluted way for the universe as a brute fact. We don’t know why it exists or how it came to exist, it just is, and that’s all we need to know. The problem I find with that line of reasoning, is that it has no explanatory power or scope. One thing it doesn’t do thought, is rule out the possibility that there is a nonphysical explanation for why the universe exists and how it came into existence. So whether or not it’s sound, it still doesn’t affect my position as far as I can tell.
Concerning the op, the only objection that would be insuperable to the argument that I can see, is by showing the proposed explanation to be either logically or metaphysically impossible, which to my knowledge cannot be done. Sure we can quibble about things like definitions, but I don’t see how those would ever amount to insuperable problems. So I stand by my claim that it is possible to make a case for the supernatural using scientific evidence.