The Laws of Nature existed before space and time

[BreezeWood]

...if angular the universes matter in mass and at the same time in a vacuum will eventually return to its origin...

...the universe is an open system, it must have had a beginning because if we follow it backwards in time, then any object in the universe must come to the boundary of space time.

Let's all please get on the same page here w/ "time" and the BB. We think of time as a continuum w/ each point in time having others before and after, but these days most geeks say that the time began at the BB so at that instant there was a present, and future, but no past. Not everyone agrees but those guys are in a different school of thot and our convo here will not make sense unless we announce if we're not together on this.

...what is your objective by the way ... The Laws of Nature existed before space and time...

We can talk about natural law 'before' the BB if we're clear that we mean the laws were followed by reason thru a BB and not on a timeline. My take is that there are many natural laws that obviously do not fit here, one being the law of relativity given that the beginning inflationary epoch involved FTL travel of everything. As far as I can see the conservation of energy can't apply either if it means total energy can't disappear, and then turn around and say the entire total heat of the system of the universe disappears as aggregate temp nears zero.

Personally, I'd argue that a universal law that could qualify is the assumption that Right is preferred to Wrong and the Good is better than the Evil. Those laws can follow through intuitive reasoning where the others (imho) don't.

.

Personally, I'd argue that a universal law that could qualify is the assumption that Right is preferred to Wrong and the Good is better than the Evil. Those laws can follow through intuitive reasoning where the others (imho) don't.

(universal law): Right is preferred to Wrong and the Good is better than the Evil.


not necessarily so, if there is a preference then it may not be a natural law but rather from an occurrence that shaped two natural and equal laws to place one before the other. the occurrence as a force of its own ... so the preference might actually be a third force that interacts with the other two.


not sure if expat is leaning the discussion to religion but the original religion of the 1st century was the Triumph of Good vs Evil or the third force dictating that what had been accomplished will not be reversed and must be accomplished by any Spirit hoping to be freed to prosper in the Everlasting.

the 1st century was superseded by the late 4th century where the religion became you can not triumph over evil and must abandon you Spirit (to them) and that to do it oneself became a sin and was devised by devious mortals as a ploy defying the Almighty's original commandment for the purpose to take command themselves as the new rulers on earth. christianity


... if it is not a religious discussion I do agree the forces of Good and Evil have always prevailed, are natural laws and that one can became greater than the other and by a Triumph of one force over the other that force as a Purity becomes a new selfdirected dimension as a freed Spirit to know and be aware for all eternity.

 

[ding]

we know there was a beginning to the cycles because the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics tells us that the entropy will increase with each cycle. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a fundamental law of nature which tells us that entropy can only increase or stay the same.

You stuck your foot in your mouth again.

No he didn't. This is what we're talking about:

The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of any isolated system always increases.

The Three Laws of Thermodynamics ​

iow:

You cannot break even (you cannot return to the same energy state, because there is always an increase in disorder; entropy always increases).

What is a simple defintion of the laws of thermodynamics?​

The first law's the conservation of energy and the 3rd says that there is no conservation of energy as the temp of the universe continuously falls as the universe's total heat kinetic energy magically disappears. Yeah I know it's 'science', but I've never had much respect for thermodynamics. Sure, it works for designing HVAC systems but for cosmology? What a crock.

mho

Entropy does NOT always increase. The actual scientific SLoT says entropy NEVER DECREASES, not always increases. Entropy can equal zero. Also heat and kinetic energy are two DIFFERENT forms of energy, the third is potential energy.

Do you know when the entropy last equaled zero?

Today.
If entropy could not equal zero, no matter could exist.
Does matter exist today???

Let me try this again. If entropy is the total disorder of the universe, when was the last time entropy equaled zero? At what point in our past was there no entropy (i.e. no disorder in the universe)?

 

[ding]

we know there was a beginning to the cycles because the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics tells us that the entropy will increase with each cycle. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a fundamental law of nature which tells us that entropy can only increase or stay the same.

You stuck your foot in your mouth again.

No he didn't. This is what we're talking about:

The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of any isolated system always increases.

The Three Laws of Thermodynamics ​

iow:

You cannot break even (you cannot return to the same energy state, because there is always an increase in disorder; entropy always increases).

What is a simple defintion of the laws of thermodynamics?​

The first law's the conservation of energy and the 3rd says that there is no conservation of energy as the temp of the universe continuously falls as the universe's total heat kinetic energy magically disappears. Yeah I know it's 'science', but I've never had much respect for thermodynamics. Sure, it works for designing HVAC systems but for cosmology? What a crock.

mho

Entropy does NOT always increase. The actual scientific SLoT says entropy NEVER DECREASES, not always increases. Entropy can equal zero. Also heat and kinetic energy are two DIFFERENT forms of energy, the third is potential energy.

Do you know when the entropy last equaled zero?

Today.
If entropy could not equal zero, no matter could exist.
Does matter exist today???

The least disorder in the universe was at the very beginning. It only gets more disordered from there.

 

[expat_panama]

...the forces of Good and Evil have always prevailed, are natural laws...

Maybe we need to be clear at this point that we don't know and we can't scientifically confirm what exists beyond the limits of space and time but what we're doing is here is we're assuming that right/wrong and good/evil are pervasive because the ideas fit intuitively.

Pse let me know if you'd like me to define/explain what I'm trying to say.

 

[BreezeWood]

...the forces of Good and Evil have always prevailed, are natural laws...

Maybe we need to be clear at this point that we don't know and we can't scientifically confirm what exists beyond the limits of space and time but what we're doing is here is we're assuming that right/wrong and good/evil are pervasive because the ideas fit intuitively.

Pse let me know if you'd like me to define/explain what I'm trying to say.

.

Maybe we need to be clear at this point that we don't know and we can't scientifically confirm what exists beyond the limits of space and time but what we're doing is here is we're assuming that right/wrong and good/evil are pervasive because the ideas fit intuitively.

expat: Personally, I'd argue that a universal law that could qualify is the assumption that Right is preferred to Wrong and the Good is better than the Evil. Those laws can follow through intuitive reasoning where the others (imho) don't.

ok, the lower one is more acceptable ...

expat: Pse let me know if you'd like me to define/explain what I'm trying to say.

that would be reasonable to continue the discussion.

 

[ding]

...the forces of Good and Evil have always prevailed, are natural laws...

Maybe we need to be clear at this point that we don't know and we can't scientifically confirm what exists beyond the limits of space and time but what we're doing is here is we're assuming that right/wrong and good/evil are pervasive because the ideas fit intuitively.

Pse let me know if you'd like me to define/explain what I'm trying to say.

You seem like a reasonable guy. I appreciate your help too. But the people I have been discussing this with are idiots who think they know more than they do.

What I have been doing is laying the foundation using observations and science for the basis of the belief that the universe (i.e. time and space) had a beginning. The logical conclusion is that there must be a first cause.

I have not gotten to the step that you mentioned, but I would welcome that discussion.

 

[expat_panama]

expat: Pse let me know if you'd like me to define/explain what I'm trying to say.

that would be reasonable to continue the discussion.

I would welcome that discussion.

We're talking about what we know about things outside this universe given the fact that we are inside this universe and are only able to see and know about things inside this universe.

Question one is how do know anything? That's "Epistemology" --the study of what we can know. Fine. Let's agree that we know what we observe --we connect w/ reality thru our senses. We can also agree that we can reason so we can know even more w/ logic. You know you exist because you're aware of existing --the fact that it's you who's being aware proves that you're also existing.

Wait, how do you prove that anyone else exists and you're not just imagining them? Sure, you see them, even touch them but how do you prove that you're not just thinking and imagining all that touch and sight. Logic fails here. The way we know that others exist is the fact that damn it, we feel better if we say so. In other words our intuition says that others exist and therefore intuition is as necessary for connecting to reality as are our senses and our logic.

We can't see outside our universe and we can't logically prove what's there (yet). What we can do is intuitively deduce that realities such as Right-over-Wrong and Good-over-Evil transcend all space and time and therefore must prevail beyond the limits of our physical universe.

 

[ding]

expat: Pse let me know if you'd like me to define/explain what I'm trying to say.

that would be reasonable to continue the discussion.

I would welcome that discussion.

We're talking about what we know about things outside this universe given the fact that we are inside this universe and are only able to see and know about things inside this universe.

Question one is how do know anything? That's "Epistemology" --the study of what we can know. Fine. Let's agree that we know what we observe --we connect w/ reality thru our senses. We can also agree that we can reason so we can know even more w/ logic. You know you exist because you're aware of existing --the fact that it's you who's being aware proves that you're also existing.

Wait, how do you prove that anyone else exists and you're not just imagining them? Sure, you see them, even touch them but how do you prove that you're not just thinking and imagining all that touch and sight. Logic fails here. The way we know that others exist is the fact that damn it, we feel better if we say so. In other words our intuition says that others exist and therefore intuition is as necessary for connecting to reality as are our senses and our logic.

We can't see outside our universe and we can't logically prove what's there (yet). What we can do is intuitively deduce that realities such as Right-over-Wrong and Good-over-Evil transcend all space and time and therefore must prevail beyond the limits of our physical universe.

How do I know that this universe is not my personal universe? Where the existence of everything hinges on me. If I'm not there, it isn't there. If I am there, it is there. And how do I know that there are not other personal universes but made for someone else. I might even be in those universes too, where my existence hinges on the existence of the person the universe was created for. We actually don't have to imagine this. That is exactly how our consciousness works in this universe.

There is a final state of fact for all things. Once the final state of fact is discovered it will be known that it was always that way and will always be that way. That it always existed, never changed and is everlasting. Some people call this reality or existence. I call it God.

Everything which exists inside our universe today had the potential to exist when space and time were created. Those potentialities were realized through the laws of nature. In effect, beings that know and create were pre-ordained by the laws of nature which were in place before space and time were created.

Are you with me so far?

 

[BreezeWood]

expat: Pse let me know if you'd like me to define/explain what I'm trying to say.

that would be reasonable to continue the discussion.

I would welcome that discussion.

We're talking about what we know about things outside this universe given the fact that we are inside this universe and are only able to see and know about things inside this universe.

Question one is how do know anything? That's "Epistemology" --the study of what we can know. Fine. Let's agree that we know what we observe --we connect w/ reality thru our senses. We can also agree that we can reason so we can know even more w/ logic. You know you exist because you're aware of existing --the fact that it's you who's being aware proves that you're also existing.

Wait, how do you prove that anyone else exists and you're not just imagining them? Sure, you see them, even touch them but how do you prove that you're not just thinking and imagining all that touch and sight. Logic fails here. The way we know that others exist is the fact that damn it, we feel better if we say so. In other words our intuition says that others exist and therefore intuition is as necessary for connecting to reality as are our senses and our logic.

We can't see outside our universe and we can't logically prove what's there (yet). What we can do is intuitively deduce that realities such as Right-over-Wrong and Good-over-Evil transcend all space and time and therefore must prevail beyond the limits of our physical universe.

How do I know that this universe is not my personal universe? Where the existence of everything hinges on me. If I'm not there, it isn't there. If I am there, it is there. And how do I know that there are not other personal universes but made for someone else. I might even be in those universes too, where my existence hinges on the existence of the person the universe was created for. We actually don't have to imagine this. That is exactly how our consciousness works in this universe.

There is a final state of fact for all things. Once the final state of fact is discovered it will be known that it was always that way and will always be that way. That it always existed, never changed and is everlasting. Some people call this reality or existence. I call it God.

Everything which exists inside our universe today had the potential to exist when space and time were created. Those potentialities were realized through the laws of nature. In effect, beings that know and create were pre-ordained by the laws of nature which were in place before space and time were created.

Are you with me so far?

.

There is a final state of fact for all things.

the attainable Apex of Knowledge ...

In effect, beings that know and create were pre-ordained by the laws of nature which were in place before space and time were created.

the genome of life

there was never a time without the laws of nature, what became pre-ordained did so by the intervention and sucess of the Almighty's victory - The Triumph of Good over evil, as is now prescribed necessary to persist from mortality of physiology to Spiritual admission to the Everlasting.

 

[ding]

expat: Pse let me know if you'd like me to define/explain what I'm trying to say.

that would be reasonable to continue the discussion.

I would welcome that discussion.

We're talking about what we know about things outside this universe given the fact that we are inside this universe and are only able to see and know about things inside this universe.

Question one is how do know anything? That's "Epistemology" --the study of what we can know. Fine. Let's agree that we know what we observe --we connect w/ reality thru our senses. We can also agree that we can reason so we can know even more w/ logic. You know you exist because you're aware of existing --the fact that it's you who's being aware proves that you're also existing.

Wait, how do you prove that anyone else exists and you're not just imagining them? Sure, you see them, even touch them but how do you prove that you're not just thinking and imagining all that touch and sight. Logic fails here. The way we know that others exist is the fact that damn it, we feel better if we say so. In other words our intuition says that others exist and therefore intuition is as necessary for connecting to reality as are our senses and our logic.

We can't see outside our universe and we can't logically prove what's there (yet). What we can do is intuitively deduce that realities such as Right-over-Wrong and Good-over-Evil transcend all space and time and therefore must prevail beyond the limits of our physical universe.

So given that the laws of nature were in place before space and time were created and given that potentialities exist as a function of those laws of nature then given enough time and the right conditions all potentialities will be realized eventually.

Do you agree with this?

 

[expat_panama]

...given that the laws of nature were in place before space and time were created and given that potentialities exist as a function of those laws of nature then given enough time and the right conditions all potentialities will be realized eventually. Do you agree with this?

We don't share those 'givens'.

I got my 'givens' and you got yours so what do we right now got in common? Pse tell me if you agree w/ these:

1. Chronologically, our universe began w/ the big bang and the boundaries of our universe limit all space, time, and our perceptions.
2. There are many natural laws, some are models for understanding physical phenomena and others serve for dealing w/ things like reason, moral imperatives, and the very meaning of existence itself.
   
3. The current consensus of cosmologists is that many physical natural laws evovled into being over time long after the big bang had already occurred and these physical laws did not exist in our universe during earlier epochs of the universe's evolution.
4. If the goal of this thread is the study of whether natural laws existed before space and time, then our task is to first say which laws we mean and second we must show what evidence we have here and now that indicates such an existence..

 

[expat_panama]

...How do I know that this universe is not my personal universe?... ... We actually don't have to imagine this. That is exactly how our consciousness works...

Maybe you don't have to imagine this but the rest of us do. Two reasons. One is that if you don't exist and your appearance is just something I'm imagining, then we're done because I don't want to waste time talking to myself. The other is that most of us answer this question using a tool called "intuition", and if you're not willing to acknowledge the existence and usefulness of this tool then it will be very difficult for us to talk.

 

[ding]

...given that the laws of nature were in place before space and time were created and given that potentialities exist as a function of those laws of nature then given enough time and the right conditions all potentialities will be realized eventually. Do you agree with this?

We don't share those 'givens'.

I got my 'givens' and you got yours so what do we right now got in common? Pse tell me if you agree w/ these:

1. Chronologically, our universe began w/ the big bang and the boundaries of our universe limit all space, time, and our perceptions.
2. There are many natural laws, some are models for understanding physical phenomena and others serve for dealing w/ things like reason, moral imperatives, and the very meaning of existence itself.
   
3. The current consensus of cosmologists is that many physical natural laws evovled into being over time long after the big bang had already occurred and these physical laws did not exist in our universe during earlier epochs of the universe's evolution.
4. If the goal of this thread is the study of whether natural laws existed before space and time, then our task is to first say which laws we mean and second we must show what evidence we have here and now that indicates such an existence..

The only reference from cosmologists and physicists that I have seen are that the laws of nature were in lace before space and time. Can you provide a link to support your position that they were not?

 

[ding]

...How do I know that this universe is not my personal universe?... ... We actually don't have to imagine this. That is exactly how our consciousness works...

Maybe you don't have to imagine this but the rest of us do. Two reasons. One is that if you don't exist and your appearance is just something I'm imagining, then we're done because I don't want to waste time talking to myself. The other is that most of us answer this question using a tool called "intuition", and if you're not willing to acknowledge the existence and usefulness of this tool then it will be very difficult for us to talk.

I literally did not exist in your consciousness 1 minute before you typed this reply.

 

[BreezeWood]

...given that the laws of nature were in place before space and time were created and given that potentialities exist as a function of those laws of nature then given enough time and the right conditions all potentialities will be realized eventually. Do you agree with this?

We don't share those 'givens'.

I got my 'givens' and you got yours so what do we right now got in common? Pse tell me if you agree w/ these:

1. Chronologically, our universe began w/ the big bang and the boundaries of our universe limit all space, time, and our perceptions.
2. There are many natural laws, some are models for understanding physical phenomena and others serve for dealing w/ things like reason, moral imperatives, and the very meaning of existence itself.
   
3. The current consensus of cosmologists is that many physical natural laws evovled into being over time long after the big bang had already occurred and these physical laws did not exist in our universe during earlier epochs of the universe's evolution.
4. If the goal of this thread is the study of whether natural laws existed before space and time, then our task is to first say which laws we mean and second we must show what evidence we have here and now that indicates such an existence..

.

• Chronologically, our universe began w/ the big bang and the boundaries of our universe limit all space, time, and our perceptions.

the above is correct for "our" universe but that does not restrict the laws of nature to only this period of time.

there is the possibility the moment of Singularity may be considered as a transition than a beginning where all motion became an equilibrium without one theory cancelling the other for that particular instance. in so far as a transition Singularity represents the moment from a concluding past to a new evolved present where the similar laws of one are the same as the other.

otherwise you are restricting a conversation to only your point of view of a defined beginning rather than the consideration for the laws of nature from an equally plausible origin of our universe that does not rely on a beginning for their existence. that the laws of nature's existence is not dependent on a particular space and time, ours and may be considered eternal.

If the goal of this thread is the study of whether natural laws existed before space and time, then our task is to first say which laws we mean and second we must show what evidence we have here and now that indicates such an existence..

before "our" space and time ...


the laws of physics for certain - and the configuration for the genome of life, physiology - the natural sciences.

 

[expat_panama]

If the goal of this thread is the study of whether natural laws existed before space and time, then our task is to first say which laws we mean and second we must show what evidence we have here and now that indicates such an existence..

...before "our" space and time ...

We may not want to be so arragant as to say the entire space/time continuum is "ours". Like, human beans have been around for say, a million years but space/time's been here 14 thousand times as long and it will most likely be here after all of humanity is looong gone. Not only that, are you sure nobody besides us is staking a claim?

At any rate, we all need to decide what a natural law is. until we agree on anything better I'll go w/ this:

scientific law
noun

a phenomenon of nature that has been proven to invariably occur whenever certain conditions exist or are met; also, a formal statement about such a phenomenon; also called natural law

the definition of scientific law​

Somebody prove to me what physical conditions exist beyond where we can observe. We're going to have what, a seance or something?

 

[ding]

Somebody prove to me what physical conditions exist beyond where we can observe. We're going to have what, a seance or something?

Don't be silly. Didn't you say in post #67 that we can intuitively deduce that realities such as Right-over-Wrong and Good-over-Evil transcend all space and time and therefore must prevail beyond the limits of our physical universe?

The same thing applies to the physical laws. We can logically deduce the laws governing quantum mechanics must have existed if space and time popped into existence through quantum mechanics. Furthermore, we can logically deduce that the conservation laws must have existed prior to space and time if the laws of quantum mechanics follow the laws of conservation. In fact, that is exactly Vilenkin's point. See the 5 minute mark for the start of this discussion. Please feel free to provide any links that you believe refute his belief.

 

[BreezeWood]

.

Somebody prove to me what physical conditions exist beyond where we can observe. We're going to have what, a seance or something?

it does not seem to make an impression there is no beyond, what exists is repeated. the Apex is the equilibrium of Singularity, mirror images of existence.

 

[expat_panama]

..decide what a natural law is. until we agree on anything better I'll go w/ this:

scientific law
noun

a phenomenon of nature that has been proven to invariably occur whenever certain conditions exist or are met; also, a formal statement about such a phenomenon; also called natural law

the definition of scientific law​

Somebody prove to me what physical conditions exist beyond where we can observe. We're going to have what, a seance or something?

Don't be silly. Didn't you say in post #67 that we can intuitively deduce that realities such as Right-over-Wrong and Good-over-Evil transcend all space and time...

Work with me. The only definition of "natural law" we got right now is the one I just posted, and it describes "...a phenomenon of nature that has been proven to invariably occur whenever certain conditions exist or are met...". I don't think that's silly; in fact, it's the only definition we've got. Anyone who doesn't like it can offer his own. After that I asked somebody prove to me "what physical conditions exist beyond where we can observe." I think that's a fair question too. Then I asked whether we're "going to have what, a seance or something?". OK, that's silly but once again it's all we got.

Now we're considering whether "Right-over-Wrong and Good-over-Evil" are phenomena in nature that are proven to invariably occur whenever certain conditions exist". Our first step is to be able to prove what conditions are necessary for Right-over-Wrong and Good-over-Evil to occur, and then we must prove that those conditions exist where we cannot observe.

Are we still together?

...You can't do anything logically, let alone deduce.

Maybe someone else can but I know I sure as hall can't, and I haven't seen it here so far.

 

[ding]

..decide what a natural law is. until we agree on anything better I'll go w/ this:

scientific law
noun

a phenomenon of nature that has been proven to invariably occur whenever certain conditions exist or are met; also, a formal statement about such a phenomenon; also called natural law

the definition of scientific law​

Somebody prove to me what physical conditions exist beyond where we can observe. We're going to have what, a seance or something?

Don't be silly. Didn't you say in post #67 that we can intuitively deduce that realities such as Right-over-Wrong and Good-over-Evil transcend all space and time...

Work with me. The only definition of "natural law" we got right now is the one I just posted, and it describes "...a phenomenon of nature that has been proven to invariably occur whenever certain conditions exist or are met...". I don't think that's silly; in fact, it's the only definition we've got. Anyone who doesn't like it can offer his own. After that I asked somebody prove to me "what physical conditions exist beyond where we can observe." I think that's a fair question too. Then I asked whether we're "going to have what, a seance or something?". OK, that's silly but once again it's all we got.

Now we're considering whether "Right-over-Wrong and Good-over-Evil" are phenomena in nature that are proven to invariably occur whenever certain conditions exist". Our first step is to be able to prove what conditions are necessary for Right-over-Wrong and Good-over-Evil to occur, and then we must prove that those conditions exist where we cannot observe.

Are we still together?

...You can't do anything logically, let alone deduce.

Maybe someone else can but I know I sure as hall can't, and I haven't seen it here so far.

No. We're not. There are two types of natural laws; physical and moral. The physical laws are the laws of physics and thermodynamics. The moral laws are laws of virtue.

I am discussing both. It is the physical laws which cosmologists and physicists have suggested were in place before space and time existed. I think we both agree that the moral laws of nature were in place, right?