Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

The Infinite and the Finite

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

What is your evidence that there was another universe prior to the big bang; what indeed is your evidence that scientists hold that before the big bang there was another universe?

I'm not well versed in the details of physics, but the logic goes something like this:

1) The universe is an end result of an expanding singularity. (Big Bang)

2) The universe, due to the eventual total force of gravity, vs. the force of "dark energy" (the force which causes universal expansion) will loose expanding moment and gravity will take the lead, causing the universe to fall backward and collapse in upon itself again as another singularity. (Big Crunch)

Now, when the Big Bang was first postulated, the idea was that it was the start of time (which it it still is, if you use the actual physicist definition of time). It was then calculated that gravity would eventually beat out the rate of expansion, and fall back into another singularity, the Big Crunch, ending time. Scientists have begun to propose that perhaps the universe regularly expands and contracts. Since time technically ends in a singularity, even if time travel turns out to be possible (There is debate on this), it would be impossible to travel outside of the current cycle of expansion. So each cycle of the universe is self contained. Its not that there was another universe before this one, its all the same mass and energy, its just that time does not exist until after the Big Bang and before the Big Crunch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 126
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Where exactly did I really say that? I can't find it in my copy. I say "if there are no actual infinities". Period.

Where exactly is that period? It shows up as a comma in my screen. Your full sentence reads:

"If there are no actual infinities, then that is sufficient reason to decide that the universe if finite."

To read it any other way than with "other than the universe" implied results in the tautology: If there are no actual infinities, then there are no actual infinities. Surely you didn't mean to present a circular argument?

If you think that the totality of existence has a special property that sets it apart from any part of the universe, you can shoulder your burden of proof. I needn't show anything, since I'm simply saying that the totality of existence is not radically different from any subpart of it.

That's quite an assertion. Can you define the totality of existence in terms of the components of existence, given your limited knowledge of those components? Can you infer the size of the totality from the size of the components?

Remember, I'm not arguing that the universe is infinite, only that the claim that it is finite does not follow from logic. Since you are making an assertion as to the nature of the universe, it's up to you to provide some thing to back it up, not me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is your evidence that there was another universe prior to the big bang; what indeed is your evidence that scientists hold that before the big bang there was another universe?

I did say, 'Presumably'. Nyronus spelled out the theory behind it.

It is absolutely just scientific speculation, but it is scientific speculation based on the best evidence we have: that the universe in which we live did expand from the explosion of a massive destabilized singularity which, prior to the explosion, contained all of the matter and energy in our universe.

Either that singularity existed and always existed as a singularity, or the singularity came into existence from somewhere else.

If the singularity always existed as a singularity, then the question becomes, why did the singularity destabilize and explode if it had existed for an unbounded period as a singularity?

If, however, the singularity came into existence from somewhere else, what are the possibilities:

1) That a prior instance of a universe had collapsed inwards upon itself, forming the new singularity, which was inherently unstable; or

2) That some alternate universe (as theorized to exist under string theory) provided the material for the singularity, possibly by means of a dimensional instability from a black hole (or in other words somehow), and that eventually the material was sufficient enough to become unstable and exploded.

We have no evidence to determine which is correct - that the singularity is all there was, or that there was something prior to the singularity. If the former, we'll probably never know, but "the universe" can mean "existence". However, if the latter then option 1 seems the likely case (Occam's Razor), which means that we potentially have an unbounded regression of explosions, expansions, burn outs, and contractions, across all of which, all of the matter and energy within exists and has always existed. If option 2 is actually correct, then there is more than one universe existing simultaneously, and in which case, all the matter and energy across all the universes exists and has always existed, and it moves around a lot, gets out for the weekend to the country, etc.

Because the conjecture does exist that there are alternative universes or preceding universes, therefore, I think it is a point of confusion to consider that 'the universe' equates to 'existence'. I also don't believe I've ever come across Rand using the terms interchangeably - am I mistaken here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) The universe is an end result of an expanding singularity. (Big Bang)
Right, well that is one claim that has no scientific support as far as I know.
Now, when the Big Bang was first postulated, the idea was that it was the start of time (which it it still is, if you use the actual physicist definition of time).
So in other words, the nature of the universe changed so that with the Big Bang, distinct entities arose and they had relations to each other, which included time. None of this Big Bang fooferah is evidence for actual infinitiy of multiple universes, it's simply an illustration of the notion "aspects of the universe".
Scientists have begun to propose that perhaps the universe regularly expands and contracts.
Yes. Not "the universes". There is not any at all evidence that prior to the Big Bang there was another universe.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right, well that is one claim that has no scientific support as far as I know.

Big Bang Theory - Evidence for the Theory

What are the major evidences which support the Big Bang theory?

* First of all, we are reasonably certain that the universe had a beginning.

* Second, galaxies appear to be moving away from us at speeds proportional to their distance. This is called "Hubble's Law," named after Edwin Hubble (1889-1953) who discovered this phenomenon in 1929. This observation supports the expansion of the universe and suggests that the universe was once compacted.

* Third, if the universe was initially very, very hot as the Big Bang suggests, we should be able to find some remnant of this heat. In 1965, Radioastronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered a 2.725 degree Kelvin (-454.765 degree Fahrenheit, -270.425 degree Celsius) Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB) which pervades the observable universe. This is thought to be the remnant which scientists were looking for. Penzias and Wilson shared in the 1978 Nobel Prize for Physics for their discovery.

* Finally, the abundance of the "light elements" Hydrogen and Helium found in the observable universe are thought to support the Big Bang model of origins.

http://www.big-bang-theory.com/

Point 3 is substantial - what was predicted from theory was confirmed by direct observation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Point 3 is substantial - what was predicted from theory was confirmed by direct observation.
I don't understand: how does that show that the universe resulted from an expanding singularity?

BTW, here is their top-level web page. If we are arguing about scientific matters, I think we should restrict the evidence to actual scientific sources and not religious websites.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right, well that is one claim that has no scientific support as far as I know.

Read Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time. I also was a Big Bang "denier" until I had the actual content of the theory explained to me by a man who knows what he's talking about, and exactly why it was the closest thing to correct (which is all you can get from science). If you read some literature not he subject, you find the Big Bang model, or later versions of it at-least, have predicted several things to be true.

So in other words, the nature of the universe changed so that with the Big Bang, distinct entities arose and they had relations to each other, which included time. None of this Big Bang fooferah is evidence for actual infinitiy of multiple universes, it's simply an illustration of the notion "aspects of the universe".

You confusing several things here. To begin with, the Big Bang was long heralded as proof that the universe WAS finite and self contained. The multiple universe thing seems to be your willful misinterpretation of what I said. To begin, the cycling theory is new and not nearly was well worked out as the original big bang theory. These cycles are not "multiple universes" in the sense that physics talks of multiple universes. They are instances of the same essential universe fluctuating in and out of a mass singularity. Time ends in a singularity, so the cycles are self contained. So you are essentially right with the phrase "...so that with the Big Bang, distinct entities arose and they had relations to each other, which included time." The problem is at one point you scoff at the theory, and then support it.

Yes. Not "the universes". There is not any at all evidence that prior to the Big Bang there was another universe.

The concept of the multiple universes is something COMPLETELY DIFFERENT then the Big Bang model. They are predicted under two DIFFERENT branches of physics. The Big Bang comes in under Relativity, while the multiple universe interpretation comes in under quantum physics. The Big Bang HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MULTIPLE UNIVERSE. Attacking Big Bang theory will get you nowhere in a multiple universe argument. They are unrelated. In fact, I am at a loss on how we were arguing multiple universes as a mean of infinity in relation to the Big Bang in the first place...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Read Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time. I also was a Big Bang "denier" until I had the actual content of the theory explained to me by a man who knows what he's talking about, and exactly why it was the closest thing to correct (which is all you can get from science).
I'm not denying the Big Bang, I'm denying that there is any evidence that supports the assertion that the universe results from an expanding singularity. I'm denying that there is any evidence for multiple universes, and that the universe is "an end result" of something. If you also deny these claims, then you should join me in rejecting the assetion that "The universe is an end result of an expanding singularity". The Big Bang model does not say that "The universe is an end result of an expanding singularity". If you didn't mean what you actually said or you don't understand the consequences of your actual statement, you can try to restate your position so that it does reflect your actual beliefs.

One of the fundamental problems in the relationship between science and philosophy is that scientists often don't pay any attention to what they are actually saying, and they will make ridiculous metaphorical statements about multiple universes. Responsible scientists don't cook up these misinterpretations -- they will sinply say that there has been this particular sequence of events described by as the "Big Bang", and they do not make crazy claims about there being multiple universes; they do not say "the universe is one thing, which was preceded by another thing before the Big Bang". There simply is no evidence to support that claim, and they don't say it.

I'd suggest reading the recent postings here on this matter again. Start with the fact that the universe is not "a thing".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't prove the big bang, but it provided a specific prediction that was later shown to agree with reality. That's evidence.
Not in the least. Even though there was a "Big Bang", the universe did not result from it. The universe logically precedes, and does not follow from, any bangs.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not in the least. Even though there was a "Big Bang", the universe did not result from it. The universe logically precedes, and does not follow from, any bangs.

I agree with the conclusion, but the background radiation provided evidence (but not proof) that a big bang occurred.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "Big Bang" was simply a phase transition of an eternal universe. To say that everything that exists, i.e, the universe is not a "thing" is ridiculous. If by "thing" we mean existent of course the universe--the sum of all existents-- is itself an existent, a "thing". All existents or things are finite. A is A. The universe is all that exists. The universe is an existent. The universe is finite. An actual metaphysical infinity--or singularity-- is impossible because it is a complete violation of the law of identity. "Infinity" is and can only be used as a mathematical tool, i.e., a concept of method. QED

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't prove the big bang, but it provided a specific prediction that was later shown to agree with reality. That's evidence.

Exactly. We also haven't got a direct observation of evolution in action, as the process takes millions of years, but the evidence it left behind is pretty solid.

The radioactive background noise was predicted by starting with the singularity (which really just means black hole and may not actually take up 0 space, but just be compressed REALLY REALLY small), and determining what would be the result of an explosion on such a massive scale.

Their calculations predicted that, based on the estimated age of the universe, that a certain type and level of radiation would be found *everywhere* in the observable universe. They then looked, and found the radiation exactly in the predicted frequency range, everywhere they looked.

There are, to my knowledge, no other explanations for why such an evenly spread background radiation would exist.

Therefore, the science is considered conclusively to have proved that this universe came from the explosion of the big bang, and that explosion came from a single black hole that contained all the energy in the universe.

So we're back to: where did that black hole come from? And the resulting two options: It was always there and then it changed its nature for no apparent reason (doesn't that sound mystical) and exploded or it resulted from the collapse of a prior universe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Therefore, the science is considered conclusively to have proved that this universe came from the explosion of the big bang, and that explosion came from a single black hole that contained all the energy in the universe.
If you can find a reputable scientific source (scientific journal or academic book) where a cosmologist says this, I will send you $25.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you can find a reputable scientific source (scientific journal or academic book) where a cosmologist says this, I will send you $25.

While Wiki may not be the most reliable source in the world, in this case Wikipedia has 58 distinct references regarding the Big Bang. #20 on the article "Big Bang", which specifically refers to the bang coming from a Singularity, is:

# ^ S. W. Hawking and G. F. R. Ellis (1973). The large-scale structure of space-time. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-20016-4.

The supporting article, Cosmic microwave background radiation, indicates that most cosmologists consider the background radiation to be the best evidence to date to support the big bang theory.

Now, that said, there *is* a "heretic" out there.

'Heretical' cosmologist does away with the big bang

"I am a heretic," Cristiano Germani announced to an audience of cosmologists last month. Few would disagree, as he is proposing a radical alternative to standard cosmology: a universe with no big bang creation moment, and no rapid inflation. Rather than a big bang, he suggests a slingshot.

In the early 1980s, Alan Guth at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology proposed that our universe underwent inflation - a period of rapid expansion in the first 10-34 seconds after the big bang. Germani, a cosmologist at the International School of Advanced Studies in Trieste, Italy, says that inflation is beautiful and successful, yet he insists that we need to replace it.

http://space.newscientist.com/article/mg19...-big-bang-.html

I do not have a subscription so I have not read the full article.

That he calls himself a heretic, however, is pretty supportive, I think, of the general consensus among cosmologists that the radiation means what it says.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While Wiki may not be the most reliable source in the world, in this case Wikipedia has 58 distinct references regarding the Big Bang. #20 on the article "Big Bang", which specifically refers to the bang coming from a Singularity, is:

# ^ S. W. Hawking and G. F. R. Ellis (1973). The large-scale structure of space-time. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-20016-4.

Okay, so what does that prove?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "Big Bang" was simply a phase transition of an eternal universe. To say that everything that exists, i.e, the universe is not a "thing" is ridiculous. If by "thing" we mean existent of course the universe--the sum of all existents-- is itself an existent, a "thing". All existents or things are finite. A is A. The universe is all that exists. The universe is an existent. The universe is finite. An actual metaphysical infinity--or singularity-- is impossible because it is a complete violation of the law of identity. "Infinity" is and can only be used as a mathematical tool, i.e., a concept of method. QED

I'm not sure we mean "existent," when we say "thing." Although a thing is an existent, an existent is not necessarily a thing. It could also be an attribute or an action.

I think when we say "thing" we mean "entity." An entity is a self-sufficient form of existence, with a definite boundary, and perceptual in scale.

I'm not sure "the universe" - a concept by which we mean "everything which exists" - is, strictly speaking, an entity.

Since "the universe" is a conceptual device we use to place hold for "everything that exists" and "infinity" is a conceptual device we use to mean "unbounded, uncountable, immeasurable," I'm not so sure we should jump both feet in and make definite claims about the finiteness of the universe, or any other attributes we may ascribe to it.

The universe is not an entity, by strict definition, because we can not perceive "it," we can only infer it from perceiving a very (infinitely?) small subset of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not denying the Big Bang,

Right, well that is one claim that has no scientific support as far as I know.

Sounds pretty contradictory.

I'm denying that there is any evidence that supports the assertion that the universe results from an expanding singularity.

So does this, actually, considering that this is WHAT THE BIG BANG IS.

I'm denying that there is any evidence for multiple universes, and that the universe is "an end result" of something. If you also deny these claims, then you should join me in rejecting the assetion that "The universe is an end result of an expanding singularity". The Big Bang model does not say that "The universe is an end result of an expanding singularity". If you didn't mean what you actually said or you don't understand the consequences of your actual statement, you can try to restate your position so that it does reflect your actual beliefs.

I was worried I was misjudging you and making assertions when I attacked you for linking multiple universe theory and Big Bang theory. It seems my worry was misjudged. Must I reiterate that Big Bang theory is marginally unrelated to Multiple Universe Theory? Multiple Universe Theory is something else having to do with a mostly unrelated issue (that of virtual particles and observable quantum particle movements)?

But this is besides the point of the Big Bang argument. I think you seem to be lashing out against one thing altogether different than what is there. If what your arguing against the statement "The universe was created by this thing called the Big Bang which existed completely and differently from this thing called the universe," then that is a point we can see eye to eye on. The Big Bang no more created the universe than ice creates water. A singularity, even one encompassing the entirety of the universe, is just another natural state of matter.

One of the fundamental problems in the relationship between science and philosophy is that scientists often don't pay any attention to what they are actually saying, and they will make ridiculous metaphorical statements about multiple universes. Responsible scientists don't cook up these misinterpretations -- they will sinply say that there has been this particular sequence of events described by as the "Big Bang", and they do not make crazy claims about there being multiple universes; they do not say "the universe is one thing, which was preceded by another thing before the Big Bang". There simply is no evidence to support that claim, and they don't say it.

Now, I may be misjudging you again, but it seems to me you don't like a scientific theory because it disagrees with the words of your philosophical mindset. This statement, if I am reading it correctly, puts you dangerously close to a creationist as far as mindsets go. Objectivism is a philosophy for dealing with reality, and if you don't agree with the implications of a scientific idea, which may well be fact, then, unless you can demonstrate why multiple universe theory is wrong, you need to reevaluate your position, or stop calling yourself an Objectivist.

If this is not the case, then I deeply and profoundly apologize and withdraw that statement.

I am moving away from Big Bang theory, because as far as the Big Bang goes, it seems to me that your only really upset about semantics, about the way I phrased something. What I refer to in that last statement is what seems to me to be your irrational hatred of multiple universe theory. I'm not really sure what it is your trying to argue here as far as MUT (Multiple Universe Theory) goes. Big Bang Theory has nothing to do with MUT. MUT has nothing to do with Big Bang Theory. MUT is an unrelated phenomena, and the only reason I can find for your constantly pairing the two is some sort of ignorance on both. What is it about MUT, or a universe without end, that upsets you so? What are the "philosophical implications" you rant about? The very fact remains is that you talk a lot about how Multiple Universe Theory is wrong, yet have yet to justify why. And, if it is so demonstrably false, then why not take your evidence to the scientific establishment? All I can see is that you attack MUT because it seems to contradict some part of Objectivism.

In a word, what I want to know is your actual "argument." Don't suggest I read other post, don't deflect my reply with ad hominen attacks against evidence or scientists. Don't toss a red herring. Give me what you know of MUT, and why you think its wrong. Or, if I am completely misreading your position, calmly correct me as to what you argue about and why.

I'd suggest reading the recent postings here on this matter again. Start with the fact that the universe is not "a thing".

agrippa1 handles this point well, I think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Big Bang Theory has nothing to do with MUT. MUT has nothing to do with Big Bang Theory. MUT is an unrelated phenomena, and the only reason I can find for your constantly pairing the two is some sort of ignorance on both.

Completely wrong. Both theories are supernaturalist. That is, they pronounce the existence of phenomena for which there cannot possibly be evidence, phenomena completely outside of the universe, etc. In essence, they are theories of multiple realities, of of realities separate from our own. Logically and empirically, such a notion is a baseball bat to the head.

What is it about MUT, or a universe without end, that upsets you so? What are the "philosophical implications" you rant about?

The very same implications from Kant which, no doubt, also get on his nerves.

All I can see is that you attack MUT because it seems to contradict some part of Objectivism.

Objectivism starts with observation of reality. The claim of multiple universes does not start with observation of reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds pretty contradictory.
I find it incomprehensible that you guys can exhibit such utter disregard for careful thought in a philosophical discussion. Is it that you just think that knowledge comes by emitting random words in Racter-like fashion which somehow seem to be related to the topic, with no concern for what you actually say? Do you not understand what it means to say that "The universe is an end result of an expanding singularity"? It means among other things that the universe was created by the Big Bang, and (though you have not pushed this position) therefore there were multiple Bangs and multiple universes. You are not saying that the present state of the universe is the result of a Bang, you are saying that the universe itself -- that is, all of existence -- is the result of something else. Something that is separate from existence, something supernatural.

The Big Bang theory is a scientific hypothesis, one that enjoys a sufficient level of scientific support for it to be considered plausible. That does not mean that every mystical misinterpretation of the theory which invokes the phrase "Big Bang" is therefore correct, and especially it does not mean that a person who denier these erroneous interpretations is thereby an ignorant Big-Bang denier. Thus the erroneous statement in #49 that the universe was created from a singularity and that presumably, prior to that was another universe, in an endless cycle, has to be challenged as pre-scientifically wrong. Wrong because it misconstrues "the universe as it exists now" as being "the universe". "The universe" doesn't mean "the planet Earth" or "this galaxy", and the claim that existence consists of every universe wrongly entails (thanks to the word "every") that there are multiple universes. So in #50 when I challenge that position by asking for evidence that there was another universe prior to the big bang and even go so far as to doubt that scientists actually hold that before the big bang there was another universe, then the only two relevant retorts would be (1) to provide some actual evidence that there was another universe prior to the big bang, or (2) to provide some actual citation of a scientific source where a credible cosmologist sticks his professional neck out and asserts that before the big bang there was another universe. The assertion in #51 that the universe is an end result of an expanding singularity is another confused misinterpretation of what the Big Bang facts show -- then argue that the nature of the universe changed substantially, from singularity to "lots of stuff all over the place". The further speculation in #53 that the singularity could have come into existence from somewhere else (that doesn't make sense to me, to talk of "somewhere else", but if we read it as "something else" it has a sensible interpretation) then reveals at best (if true) that the nature of the universe has changed radically more than once. It does not show that there are multiple universes, that the Big Bang created the universe, or that the universe is the result of something else -- a contradiction given what the universe is. As I pointed out in #54, the nature of the universe changed so that with the Big Bang, distinct entities arose.

In #57 when you accuse me of being a Big Bang denier and even suggest that I am a creationist (*snort*), you completely miss the point. In fact, you have no clue at all whether I dislike the Big Bang theory, i.e. the actual scientific theory and not the postmodernist popular interpretations -- I've said nothing at all here that could allow you to reasonably infer that I am closet supporter of the inflationary model. I don't know whether you've done your homework on my position on the proper relationship between theoretical modeling and evidence, but if you have, you will know that the strongest defensible position regarding the Big Bang is that it is the best model that explains the observational data. That is a distinction shared with the planet "Vulcan".

The theory probably cannot be proven, but it is a sufficiently plausible conjecture that I don't oppose it as impossible or arbitrary. Even if I inflate the level of empirical evidence for the theory and conclude that it's an unquestionable fact, my denying the further false implications of multiple universes or the claim that the universe is the result of a bang does not mean I deny the Big Bang. I deny the misinterpretation of what the bang shows (especially as it pertains to the question of whether the universe is "a thing").

I've been clear enough on this point, and you have been quite steadfast in ignoring the fundamental philosophical issue. You have actually managed to both say that the universe is an end result of an expanding singularity, and yet claim that "The Big Bang no more created the universe than ice creates water". This, along with your other statements including the general tone of your discussion, indicates to me that further discussion with you on this topic, and perhaps other topics that pertain to philosophy, would be unproductive. As Rand said, you ought to discover some day that words have an exact meaning. The universe has a definite nature; that nature can be known by man, and explained in objective terms. Providing such an objective statement about the universe is the very purpose of science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was conditioned on you showing me a reputable scientific source which says that it is conclusively proven that this universe came from the explosion of the big bang. I'll send you the money when you do that.

No, I distinctly said considered conclusive. By which I meant that cosmologists consider the evidence to strongly favor the Big Bang theory of the origin of the universe over any other theories.

Is that rock solid conclusive in the same manner as touching and seeing and feeling a stone tells us we are holding a stone? No.

If you were looking for that level of conclusiveness when you offered your $25 challenge then my meaning probably wasn't clear enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been clear enough on this point, and you have been quite steadfast in ignoring the fundamental philosophical issue. You have actually managed to both say that the universe is an end result of an expanding singularity, and yet claim that "The Big Bang no more created the universe than ice creates water". This, along with your other statements including the general tone of your discussion, indicates to me that further discussion with you on this topic, and perhaps other topics that pertain to philosophy, would be unproductive. As Rand said, you ought to discover some day that words have an exact meaning. The universe has a definite nature; that nature can be known by man, and explained in objective terms. Providing such an objective statement about the universe is the very purpose of science.

Who is the "your" being addressed in this fairly aggressive and seemingly assumptive paragraph?

I'm just submitting for consideration that, because scientific theories do currently present cases for the possibilities of prior instances of Universes and for the possibility of alternative universes (no matter how far-fetched the concept) that we should avoid using the term "Universe" because, yes, while words have specific meanings, words also have multiple meanings, based on context, and there are those who believe that "the universe" refers only to the cosmos that exists as a direct result of the Big Bang which took place approximately 15 billion years ago, and those who believe that there may be alternate/parallel universes and theorize that energy and matter may even travel between them via black holes. Much of this seems outlandish and far fetched to be sure. However, as the existence or non-existence of alternate or even prior universes can not be proven, my point is simply this:

That to be certain that we encompass all possible considerations of what people mean by "The universe" that instead of "The Universe" we should use "existence" when we are explicitly discussion all that is, was, or ever will be. The axiom is "Existence exists", after all, not "The universe exists".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...