Objectivistic Cosmology

[DavidOdden]

Matter and energy cannot be created nor destroyed.

What philosophical principle of Objectivism does that follow from?

[MisterSwig]

No, I can't define time. Not in a way that makes sense, that is. But can you?

I already defined time for you in my initial response on this thread.

If you can imagine a universe where truly nothing happens, you could still also imagine a clock sitting 'next to' (that is, not within) this sad universe obediently ticking away time.

No, I can't imagine a clock sitting "next to" the universe. There is no "next to" the universe. Besides, if you are going to arbitrarily assert magical clocks, why not put them inside the universe and simply make them unstoppable? So when I say, "Imagine that every single particle in the universe stopped moving," you could retort, "But, wait, the unstoppable clock won't stop moving because it's unstoppable." I mean, isn't that ten times more sensible than fantasizing about some supernatural world in which unknowable clocks tick away time? At least with the unstoppable clock idea you have a real chance of inventing a clock that I can't stop, especially since I have a bad back and probably wouldn't be able to swing a sledgehammer for very long.

And consider this: If you imagine a universe, this universe should include you yourself as well. The universe is everything that is, after all.

Ah, yes, the universe is "everything that is," except of course for your imaginary clock that is "next to" the universe "ticking away time," correct? It's funny how there's always an "outside the universe" whenever you need one, but then it suddenly disappears when such an idea is not so convenient.

Edited March 29, 2007 by MisterSwig

[Xzi]

What philosophical principle of Objectivism does that follow from?

Existence exists, therefore always has and always will.

The universe is everything that exists as a whole.

The universe, reality, existence, approximately, is eternal, there is no beginning, no end.

What could be here before there was something here? Well that would mean there was something there, and so on.

You cannot be called upon to prove a negative, and if someone walks into the room and says there's a God waiting for me in the 4th dimension prove that there isn't, all you have to say is 'prove that there is' -- the onus of proof rests on those who make the positive assertion.

To be called upon to prove another universe is to be called upon to prove a negative.

We're dealing with existence and everything it implies using the art of non-contradictory identification. Therefore, the philosophical premise of existence exists comes first, and even if the science of physics were unable to validate that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed it would not matter -- philosophical absolutes come before science and at best science lags behind and eventually demonstrates such absolute truths.

[DavidOdden]

Existence exists, therefore always has and always will.

The universe is everything that exists as a whole.

The universe, reality, existence, approximately, is eternal, there is no beginning, no end.

From which it does not follow that all existents are permanent. For example, this paper napkin in my hand does exist right now. Hang on.... it's in the fire, it's consumed. Gone, Destroyed. The paper napkin does not exist. The question is now about destroying existence, the question is whether matter can be destroyed, or can it be created. And the same with energy. You can point to scientific conservation laws, but then those are scientific claims and not philosophical principles. Whether or not there is scientific evidence for conservation of energy is not the question: you've claimed or implied that you have a proof that Objectivism entails such a conservation law, and I want to see you produce that proof. Just saying "Existence exists!" doesn't cut it.

[Xzi]

Without deleting my post, seriously, how on earth did you become a moderator?

You seem not to have read the first chapter of OPAR.

[DavidOdden]

Without deleting my post, seriously, how on earth did you become a moderator?

You seem not to have read the first chapter of OPAR.

Baseless insults are not tolerated here. Act civilized, or leave.

[Robert J. Kolker]

That's a good question and I leave it to the scientists. But it reminds me of a couple things. The most apparently relevant is mathematical induction. Prove a property holds of the base case and prove that, if a property holds of any given thing then there is a "next" thing that also has that property, and so there becomes an infinity of things with that property, none of which need be proved directly. The other thought is that there was a scientist who said we will never know the content of the stars because we cannot get to them. Within a decade after his death they invented spectroscopy. From what little I know, scientists today hypothesize the infinity of existence by means of the infamous Universal Background Radiation.

What is "infamous" about Cosmic Background Radiation (CBR)? It has been detected and measured quite precisely. It is as real as rain. And who has inferred that the universe is of infinite size from CBR?

Bob Kolker

[Acount Overdrawn]

Without deleting my post, seriously, how on earth did you become a moderator?

You seem not to have read the first chapter of OPAR.

I suppose this topic's been dead for a little while, but I'd like to say that I've read, "chewed," and "digested" most of the points in OPAR, and certainly all of the points in the first chapter, and I'm sure the man you insulted has as well. It would be nice if you could substantiate your claim, if you're still willing: what is your proof that the Objectivist metaphysics entail the law of conservation? Or since you imply that OPAR gives such a proof, why don't you present that?

[Robert J. Kolker]

The universe is eternal; the universe does not exist in time, rather time exists in the universe.

Time is merely the relative change of various entities relationships to one another. What do you find vague about that?

Change assumes sequentiality. For a changing attribute C it is in state c1 then it is in state c2. On order is assumed. Given sequentiality and some symmetry postulates one can derive the notion of time intervals (as opposed to mere before-after order). This is non-trivial since we cannot pick up two time intervals and lay them side by side like we can with spatial intervals.

Bob Kolker