Sorry, but you and others are getting caught up in a classic Kuhn vs. Popper dialectic.

The fact is is that consistency is the truest test of reality, and M-Theory and the correlating math is currently the most consistent model.

You can add your own Subjective consistency at several evolutionary layers, by simply jumping up and down, or holding your hand over a stove burner. The persistent progressions of physical laws, while being refuted, command an equal and opposite Flux correlate in acceptance (see: Schopenhauer 3-step).

The fundamental forces of physics, like foundational evolutionary scales, have long ago proven to be consistent. So in order for you or anyone else to equally evolve, your job is to equitably shift with evolutionary progressions, on both sides of the Subjective/Objective paradigm - which, of course, is modeled after the causal core component of The Law of Opposites that constitutes Spacetime Continuum.

There is nothing consistent with that singularity, as there is nothing to compare it to, to say it is consistent. Your vague models are no more provable than any other scientific or philosophical argument, you are taking the arogant step of condemning. I dont agree with any proposed views on the bb, but does that make them wrong? Each and everyone fail on the scientific logic that you hold so dear, so if you wish to hold one view up as proven go ahead and be my guest, lets hear it.

This is the one occasion when science can not dictate the possibilities or deny any possibility. It has no authority nor conviction to dictate or act by its advocates a superior view. Even the atheists sarcastic pink elephant has just as much claim to a cause as any faith driven scientific mandate. Logic can be used, but only if it has value to the evidence that is provided, so multi verses ,parallel universes,vibrating strings or any new theoretical mumbo jumbo are just as irrelevant, as there is not one ounce of proof for any of these proposals.

So lets not be so superior or dismissive of any philosophical reasoning, as all are relevant and have equal authority.

vectorcube, that was the worst possible response I think I could have gotten to my post. You refuse to accept any idea that doesn't fit into your preconceptions of this debate, and you call ideas you don't like by unflattering names. You are not practicing philosophy when you do such things. I recognize and consider the ideas you are postulating, and while I know they are as speculative as my own ideas, I accept that some infinite regression of universes, each causing the next and caused by the previous universe is a valid idea to be considered. I'm not fond of infinite regressions because no element in such a regression is truly explained until all the elements are explained, and its impossible to explain an infinite number of elements.

Would you like to take another shot at my previous post, and this time maybe actually respond to what I'm saying?
Samm

Classical Chaos Occurs In The Quantum World, Scientists Find

look, i am not trying to insult you, so you really have to put your pride away.

I am telling you your solution is bad. In fact, you solution of postulating an entity that is timeless and spaceless is "weird". Why? Because there are so many other options. In fact, "Every" well known "modern" philosophers that i can think of have try to explain the ultimate "why" question. In all cases, they take up something like a multiverse, or some sort of possible world realism. Just to name a few:

Max tagmark` s level 4 multiverse.
Robert Nozick `s Principle of fecundity
David lewis ` s possible world realism.
Derick Parfit` s selector for selecting all possible worlds.
John ****** ` s ethical requirement.

In case you are wondering. There is a common theme. All of these philosophers( and one physicist) advocate something like a multiverse so that the contingent nature of our universe is less surprising. None of them try to find a transcendent cause for the universe, because they would have to:

1) postulate something that is completely mysterious, while other less mysterious options are available( ie : multiverses)

2) The conviction that the big bang is a natural event that can be understood. ( ie: a conviction that nothing is mysterious)


What is wrong about your solution is that you postulate something is that complete weird while there are more plausible solutions. Postulating a timeless being is fine, but that is not a satisfying explanation for the bb, because this timeless being would simply be way more complicate, and infinitly less comprehensible than the bb itself. Your substitute one mystery with another. How great!

The "majority" solution among modern philosophers that ask this ultimate question is that our bb is nothing special, and in fact, it is less mysterious if we suppose the existence of infinite many universes.

This is the best you can do ? so from here tell me how do explain the BB occurring from this chaos theory? Walk me through your reasoning, because the link surely does not.

originated from nothing.

Yes, please reason why we came from so much less, to so much more?

Err... you are comfortable with doing what you so often ask of others to give, correct?

Or is that just it?.. you are far less satisfied with being more, than less?

And please, start from your original beginning... when did you start to skew everything to less?

By giving a link you inferred that you knew the answer, im asking you to confirm this opinion. You give me your view then i will give you mine, but it is well posted my views ,on similar threads to this.

Of course you do the same things over and over again, expecting different results. Try breaking this towards something new.

One last time: explain to me how you've come from less, and are more.

If you have read my reasoning, so often, dont ask again but criticise the reasoning. By the way, without being childish, you did offer to give me your theory first, so lets hear it? please.

Yes NoAngst, you, and so many other suppressives like you, are the reason why this domain is for sale.

Thanks for making the dividing line so much clearer. Your failure is justified in advancing the better.

Till we find evidence of a universe prior to this one , we originated from nothing.

There are plenty of people that think nothing is actually a tiny bit of something. If you say such a thing, then you don` t know what nothing means.

Thing= existence

No Thing= void of existence

In my mind there is no such thing as nothing, because we have existence. To suppose anything other than what we have is just speculation of possibilities.

The only reason a person supposes about nothing, is in relation to the origin of existence, and when one realizes that this is incomprehensible to the human mind, because all the mind can possibly know is what exists, than speculation about no thing in a reality of some thing, is simply beating one's head on the proverbial brick wall for no reason.

We have some thing, this instantly denies nothing. Nothing does not exist.

I have asked you to elaborate your theory on more than one occasion and your only reply was abusive and nonsensical. Now if you imagine i will be drawn into a silly game of words forget it.

I don ` t have a "theory". I am telling you how stupid the comment " the universe come from nothing" really is. It is very very stupid. Am i being too subtle?

No your statements are just what i expected, you appear to want to enforce the childish image, i have of you. So you have no theory? then why claim to have one and then totally misquote my views, to hide your rash statement.

look, i am not trying to insult you, so you really have to put your pride away.

I am telling you your solution is bad. In fact, you solution of postulating an entity that is timeless and spaceless is "weird". Why? Because there are so many other options. In fact, "Every" well known "modern" philosophers that i can think of have try to explain the ultimate "why" question. In all cases, they take up something like a multiverse, or some sort of possible world realism. Just to name a few:

Max tagmark` s level 4 multiverse.
Robert Nozick `s Principle of fecundity
David lewis ` s possible world realism.
Derick Parfit` s selector for selecting all possible worlds.
John ****** ` s ethical requirement.

In case you are wondering. There is a common theme. All of these philosophers( and one physicist) advocate something like a multiverse so that the contingent nature of our universe is less surprising. None of them try to find a transcendent cause for the universe, because they would have to:

1) postulate something that is completely mysterious, while other less mysterious options are available( ie : multiverses)

2) The conviction that the big bang is a natural event that can be understood. ( ie: a conviction that nothing is mysterious)


What is wrong about your solution is that you postulate something is that complete weird while there are more plausible solutions. Postulating a timeless being is fine, but that is not a satisfying explanation for the bb, because this timeless being would simply be way more complicate, and infinitly less comprehensible than the bb itself. Your substitute one mystery with another. How great!

The "majority" solution among modern philosophers that ask this ultimate question is that our bb is nothing special, and in fact, it is less mysterious if we suppose the existence of infinite many universes.

Look closely at your statements and see if you can find your proposals ? Look closely and see if you can find your proposal that its just as likely to be the multiverse theory..Now tell me if it is possible, this theory and why you can be so certain?