Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:

> Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> writes:
>
> >
> > I see talk.origins as a home for arguing
> > creationism and evolution.
>
> Does it include the origin of the universe?

Not really.
It was about the 'Origin' in Darwin's sense.
It can be extended to origins of life.
(chemical evolution and all that)
It should not be extended to origins of the universe.
(physics and all that)
But 'the argument from design' can be dicussed,

Jan
(IMHO)

On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 17:42:09 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:

>Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> writes:
>
>>
>> I see talk.origins as a home for arguing
>> creationism and evolution.
>
>Does it include the origin of the universe?

In practice, TO is open to arguing any science topic which
pseudoskeptics have glommed onto. That would include the origin of
the universe, flat-earth, anti-vaxxers, and extraterrestrial visitors.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> writes:

> On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 17:42:09 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
>
>>Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>>
>>> I see talk.origins as a home for arguing creationism and evolution.
>>
>>Does it include the origin of the universe?
>
>
> In practice, TO is open to arguing any science topic which
> pseudoskeptics have glommed onto. That would include the origin of
> the universe, flat-earth, anti-vaxxers, and extraterrestrial visitors.

I think humans have evolved to assume everything has an origin because
everything they come across on earth has an origin. But whether the
universe has an origin is rather doubtful, in my opinion.

On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 13:08:49 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:

>jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 17:42:09 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I see talk.origins as a home for arguing creationism and evolution.
>>>
>>>Does it include the origin of the universe?
>>
>>
>> In practice, TO is open to arguing any science topic which
>> pseudoskeptics have glommed onto. That would include the origin of
>> the universe, flat-earth, anti-vaxxers, and extraterrestrial visitors.
>
>I think humans have evolved to assume everything has an origin because
>everything they come across on earth has an origin. But whether the
>universe has an origin is rather doubtful, in my opinion.

As you say, that's your personal opinion. Do you have a basis for it?

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> writes:

> On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 13:08:49 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
>
>>jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 17:42:09 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I see talk.origins as a home for arguing creationism and
>>>>> evolution.
>>>>
>>>>Does it include the origin of the universe?
>>>
>>>
>>> In practice, TO is open to arguing any science topic which
>>> pseudoskeptics have glommed onto. That would include the origin of
>>> the universe, flat-earth, anti-vaxxers, and extraterrestrial
>>> visitors.
>>
>>I think humans have evolved to assume everything has an origin because
>>everything they come across on earth has an origin. But whether the
>>universe has an origin is rather doubtful, in my opinion.
>
>
> As you say, that's your personal opinion. Do you have a basis for it?

According to "Emerging Spacetime" theory, space and time are not
fundamental attributes of the universe, but emerging spacetime proposes
they arise from deeper, more fundamental structures and processes.

Origin strikes me as being temporal, in this context, if the origin of
the universe is at some point in time, what was going on before that,
and why did it change? Although origin could mean something else, like
the origin of a river.

So if time emerged from something more fundamental, then there cannot
have been a beginning.

On 2/17/24 5:08 AM, Richmond wrote:
> jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 17:42:09 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I see talk.origins as a home for arguing creationism and evolution.
>>>
>>> Does it include the origin of the universe?
>>
>>
>> In practice, TO is open to arguing any science topic which
>> pseudoskeptics have glommed onto. That would include the origin of
>> the universe, flat-earth, anti-vaxxers, and extraterrestrial visitors.
>
> I think humans have evolved to assume everything has an origin because
> everything they come across on earth has an origin. But whether the
> universe has an origin is rather doubtful, in my opinion.
>

As you've probably already noticed, hardly anything is completely
off-topic in TO. The origin of the universe, or non-origin if you
prefer has been argued here extensively. There's considereable
observational evidence that something pretty dramatic happened ~ 13.8
GYA. Before that, if "before" has actual meaning, we know nothing.

On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 08:31:12 -0800
erik simpson <eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 2/17/24 5:08 AM, Richmond wrote:
> > jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> writes:
> >
> >> On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 17:42:09 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> writes:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I see talk.origins as a home for arguing creationism and evolution.
> >>>
> >>> Does it include the origin of the universe?
> >>
> >>
> >> In practice, TO is open to arguing any science topic which
> >> pseudoskeptics have glommed onto. That would include the origin of
> >> the universe, flat-earth, anti-vaxxers, and extraterrestrial visitors.
> >
> > I think humans have evolved to assume everything has an origin because
> > everything they come across on earth has an origin. But whether the
> > universe has an origin is rather doubtful, in my opinion.
> >
>
> As you've probably already noticed, hardly anything is completely
> off-topic in TO. The origin of the universe, or non-origin if you
> prefer has been argued here extensively. There's considereable
> observational evidence that something pretty dramatic happened ~ 13.8
> GYA. Before that, if "before" has actual meaning, we know nothing.
>
Yeahbut there are galaxies out there nearly that far away.

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 16:48:00 +0000
"Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:

> On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 08:31:12 -0800
> erik simpson <eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 2/17/24 5:08 AM, Richmond wrote:
> > > jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> writes:
> > >
> > >> On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 17:42:09 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> writes:
> > >>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I see talk.origins as a home for arguing creationism and evolution.
> > >>>
> > >>> Does it include the origin of the universe?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> In practice, TO is open to arguing any science topic which
> > >> pseudoskeptics have glommed onto. That would include the origin of
> > >> the universe, flat-earth, anti-vaxxers, and extraterrestrial visitors.
> > >
> > > I think humans have evolved to assume everything has an origin because
> > > everything they come across on earth has an origin. But whether the
> > > universe has an origin is rather doubtful, in my opinion.
> > >
> >
> > As you've probably already noticed, hardly anything is completely
> > off-topic in TO. The origin of the universe, or non-origin if you
> > prefer has been argued here extensively. There's considereable
> > observational evidence that something pretty dramatic happened ~ 13.8
> > GYA. Before that, if "before" has actual meaning, we know nothing.
> >
> Yeahbut there are galaxies out there nearly that far away.
>
Sorry, I didn't paste the reference before posting:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GN-z11
--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

On 16/02/2024 17:42, Richmond wrote:
> Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> writes:
>
>>
>> I see talk.origins as a home for arguing
>> creationism and evolution.
>
> Does it include the origin of the universe?

Officially no, practically yes. Or rather,
the evolution of the universe. Or, both.

I treat "creationism" as meaning only the
doctrine, which I do not believe, that
living things are what they are because God -
or someone or ones or things like God -
created them, without evolution happening.
Or with some evolution.

A chart was printed in some Christian bibles
showing that God made everything in the year
4004 B.C. Mostly, it is supposed to have not
changed much since then. Many Christians find
scientific evidence more satisfactory than
the chart.

I can see in Google Groups, but not in
Thunderbird using Eternal September,
a description of the talk.orgins group as
"Evolution versus creationism (sometimes hot!).
(Moderated)". I do not now remember if
that is "official" information. And I don't
remember if it used to say "creation" instead
of "creationism".

But in practice, arguments accepted as
"on topic" here - usually of "fundamentalist"
followers of several religions, against
aficionados of scientific knowledge - are on
subjects including:

Origin of the universe
Evolution of the universe
Origin / evolution of the Earth
Origin / evolution of living things
Origin, nature, and relationships of human races
Supernatural phenomena

These are separate topics, although one
person may want to argue about all of them,
at once. For instance, Charles Darwin's book
_On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural
Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races
in the Struggle for Life_ is about evolution,
but it has little to say about the origin of life
from which evolution started.

On 2/17/24 8:49 AM, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 16:48:00 +0000
> "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 08:31:12 -0800
>> erik simpson <eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/17/24 5:08 AM, Richmond wrote:
>>>> jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 17:42:09 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I see talk.origins as a home for arguing creationism and evolution.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Does it include the origin of the universe?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In practice, TO is open to arguing any science topic which
>>>>> pseudoskeptics have glommed onto. That would include the origin of
>>>>> the universe, flat-earth, anti-vaxxers, and extraterrestrial visitors.
>>>>
>>>> I think humans have evolved to assume everything has an origin because
>>>> everything they come across on earth has an origin. But whether the
>>>> universe has an origin is rather doubtful, in my opinion.
>>>>
>>>
>>> As you've probably already noticed, hardly anything is completely
>>> off-topic in TO. The origin of the universe, or non-origin if you
>>> prefer has been argued here extensively. There's considereable
>>> observational evidence that something pretty dramatic happened ~ 13.8
>>> GYA. Before that, if "before" has actual meaning, we know nothing.
>>>
>> Yeahbut there are galaxies out there nearly that far away.
>>
> Sorry, I didn't paste the reference before posting:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GN-z11

The race is on-going to find the oldest whatever. That object at about
400 MY short of the "beginning" is quite close to the opacity limit.
Earlier than that, free electrons obscure electromagnetic radiation.
Gravitational signals, and leftover fluctuations in the cosmic
background radiation are what we currently have to play with. They
constrain the physical models of what was going on. There's much still
not understood.

Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:

> jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 13:08:49 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
> >
> >>jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> writes:
> >>
> >>> On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 17:42:09 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> writes:
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I see talk.origins as a home for arguing creationism and
> >>>>> evolution.
> >>>>
> >>>>Does it include the origin of the universe?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> In practice, TO is open to arguing any science topic which
> >>> pseudoskeptics have glommed onto. That would include the origin of
> >>> the universe, flat-earth, anti-vaxxers, and extraterrestrial
> >>> visitors.
> >>
> >>I think humans have evolved to assume everything has an origin because
> >>everything they come across on earth has an origin. But whether the
> >>universe has an origin is rather doubtful, in my opinion.
> >
> >
> > As you say, that's your personal opinion. Do you have a basis for it?
>
> According to "Emerging Spacetime" theory, space and time are not
> fundamental attributes of the universe, but emerging spacetime proposes
> they arise from deeper, more fundamental structures and processes.
>
> Origin strikes me as being temporal, in this context, if the origin of
> the universe is at some point in time, what was going on before that,
> and why did it change? Although origin could mean something else, like
> the origin of a river.
>
> So if time emerged from something more fundamental, then there cannot
> have been a beginning.

???
Your 'more fundamental thing' can have a beginning too,

Jan

Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:

> jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 17:42:09 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> writes:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> I see talk.origins as a home for arguing creationism and evolution.
> >>
> >>Does it include the origin of the universe?
> >
> >
> > In practice, TO is open to arguing any science topic which
> > pseudoskeptics have glommed onto. That would include the origin of
> > the universe, flat-earth, anti-vaxxers, and extraterrestrial visitors.
>
> I think humans have evolved to assume everything has an origin because
> everything they come across on earth has an origin. But whether the
> universe has an origin is rather doubtful, in my opinion.

Indeed, you can deny it. Fred Hoyle did, to name just one.

But ultimately you can only have arbitrary 'opinions' about it,
so science is out,

Jan

nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) writes:

> Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
>
>> jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> > On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 13:08:49 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> writes:
>> >>
>> >>> On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 17:42:09 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>>Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> writes:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> I see talk.origins as a home for arguing creationism and
>> >>>>> evolution.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>Does it include the origin of the universe?
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> In practice, TO is open to arguing any science topic which
>> >>> pseudoskeptics have glommed onto. That would include the origin of
>> >>> the universe, flat-earth, anti-vaxxers, and extraterrestrial
>> >>> visitors.
>> >>
>> >>I think humans have evolved to assume everything has an origin because
>> >>everything they come across on earth has an origin. But whether the
>> >>universe has an origin is rather doubtful, in my opinion.
>> >
>> >
>> > As you say, that's your personal opinion. Do you have a basis for it?
>>
>> According to "Emerging Spacetime" theory, space and time are not
>> fundamental attributes of the universe, but emerging spacetime proposes
>> they arise from deeper, more fundamental structures and processes.
>>
>> Origin strikes me as being temporal, in this context, if the origin of
>> the universe is at some point in time, what was going on before that,
>> and why did it change? Although origin could mean something else, like
>> the origin of a river.
>>
>> So if time emerged from something more fundamental, then there cannot
>> have been a beginning.
>
> ???
> Your 'more fundamental thing' can have a beginning too,
>

How can something begin when there is no time?

On 17/02/2024 13:42, Richmond wrote:
> jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 13:08:49 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
>>
>>> jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 17:42:09 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I see talk.origins as a home for arguing creationism and
>>>>>> evolution.
>>>>>
>>>>> Does it include the origin of the universe?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In practice, TO is open to arguing any science topic which
>>>> pseudoskeptics have glommed onto. That would include the origin of
>>>> the universe, flat-earth, anti-vaxxers, and extraterrestrial
>>>> visitors.
>>>
>>> I think humans have evolved to assume everything has an origin because
>>> everything they come across on earth has an origin. But whether the
>>> universe has an origin is rather doubtful, in my opinion.
>>
>>
>> As you say, that's your personal opinion. Do you have a basis for it?
>
> According to "Emerging Spacetime" theory, space and time are not
> fundamental attributes of the universe, but emerging spacetime proposes
> they arise from deeper, more fundamental structures and processes.
>
> Origin strikes me as being temporal, in this context, if the origin of
> the universe is at some point in time, what was going on before that,
> and why did it change? Although origin could mean something else, like
> the origin of a river.
>
> So if time emerged from something more fundamental, then there cannot
> have been a beginning.

I don't know if I can legally link this
lecture text web page of Stephen Hawking's
with some stern warnings, but Google search does.
<https://www.hawking.org.uk/in-words/lectures/the-beginning-of-time>

This is from 1996, somewhat out of date,
and not perfectly clear to a general aufience,
but Professor Hawking described the "no boundary"
idea of space-time at the Big Bang - to avoid the
scientific problem of a universe starting with
a singularity.

Imagine that the universe is like the Earth
globe, and time runs south from the North Pole.
In one way, the North Pole is the beginning of
time. In another way, it is just a position
in spacetime which happens to have every
direction in time being forward, not back.
Like you can't go north from the North Pole,
but that is because there is no north to go
to from there. It's just the shape that the
world is.

On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 19:49:05 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com>:

>nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) writes:
>
>> Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
>>
>>> jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>> > On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 13:08:49 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> writes:
>>> >>
>>> >>> On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 17:42:09 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>>>Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> writes:
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> I see talk.origins as a home for arguing creationism and
>>> >>>>> evolution.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>Does it include the origin of the universe?
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> In practice, TO is open to arguing any science topic which
>>> >>> pseudoskeptics have glommed onto. That would include the origin of
>>> >>> the universe, flat-earth, anti-vaxxers, and extraterrestrial
>>> >>> visitors.
>>> >>
>>> >>I think humans have evolved to assume everything has an origin because
>>> >>everything they come across on earth has an origin. But whether the
>>> >>universe has an origin is rather doubtful, in my opinion.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > As you say, that's your personal opinion. Do you have a basis for it?
>>>
>>> According to "Emerging Spacetime" theory, space and time are not
>>> fundamental attributes of the universe, but emerging spacetime proposes
>>> they arise from deeper, more fundamental structures and processes.
>>>
>>> Origin strikes me as being temporal, in this context, if the origin of
>>> the universe is at some point in time, what was going on before that,
>>> and why did it change? Although origin could mean something else, like
>>> the origin of a river.
>>>
>>> So if time emerged from something more fundamental, then there cannot
>>> have been a beginning.
>>
>> ???
>> Your 'more fundamental thing' can have a beginning too,
>>
>
>How can something begin when there is no time?
>
Oh, look! Multi-colored navel lint!

(If you're unsure of the relevance of this, you can ask.)
>
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 16:49:33 +0000, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
<admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:

>On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 16:48:00 +0000
>"Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 08:31:12 -0800
>> erik simpson <eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On 2/17/24 5:08 AM, Richmond wrote:
>> > > jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> writes:
>> > >
>> > >> On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 17:42:09 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >>> Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> writes:
>> > >>>
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> I see talk.origins as a home for arguing creationism and evolution.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Does it include the origin of the universe?
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> In practice, TO is open to arguing any science topic which
>> > >> pseudoskeptics have glommed onto. That would include the origin of
>> > >> the universe, flat-earth, anti-vaxxers, and extraterrestrial visitors.
>> > >
>> > > I think humans have evolved to assume everything has an origin because
>> > > everything they come across on earth has an origin. But whether the
>> > > universe has an origin is rather doubtful, in my opinion.
>> > >
>> >
>> > As you've probably already noticed, hardly anything is completely
>> > off-topic in TO. The origin of the universe, or non-origin if you
>> > prefer has been argued here extensively. There's considereable
>> > observational evidence that something pretty dramatic happened ~ 13.8
>> > GYA. Before that, if "before" has actual meaning, we know nothing.
>> >
>> Yeahbut there are galaxies out there nearly that far away.
>>
>Sorry, I didn't paste the reference before posting:
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GN-z11

JWST seems to show stars and galaxies formed earlier than expected. As
exciting as that might be, it would pale in comparison if either were
found to have formed before the Universe.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 19:49:05 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:

>nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) writes:
>
>> Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
>>
>>> jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>> > On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 13:08:49 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> writes:
>>> >>
>>> >>> On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 17:42:09 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>>>Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> writes:
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> I see talk.origins as a home for arguing creationism and
>>> >>>>> evolution.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>Does it include the origin of the universe?
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> In practice, TO is open to arguing any science topic which
>>> >>> pseudoskeptics have glommed onto. That would include the origin of
>>> >>> the universe, flat-earth, anti-vaxxers, and extraterrestrial
>>> >>> visitors.
>>> >>
>>> >>I think humans have evolved to assume everything has an origin because
>>> >>everything they come across on earth has an origin. But whether the
>>> >>universe has an origin is rather doubtful, in my opinion.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > As you say, that's your personal opinion. Do you have a basis for it?
>>>
>>> According to "Emerging Spacetime" theory, space and time are not
>>> fundamental attributes of the universe, but emerging spacetime proposes
>>> they arise from deeper, more fundamental structures and processes.
>>>
>>> Origin strikes me as being temporal, in this context, if the origin of
>>> the universe is at some point in time, what was going on before that,
>>> and why did it change? Although origin could mean something else, like
>>> the origin of a river.
>>>
>>> So if time emerged from something more fundamental, then there cannot
>>> have been a beginning.
>>
>> ???
>> Your 'more fundamental thing' can have a beginning too,
>>
>
>How can something begin when there is no time?

My impression is your questions and comments describe the stereotype
origin paradox "what came first, chicken or egg?" My experience is
these are false paradoxes based on false dichotomies. Just as what
laid the first egg was not a chicken, it's reasonable to presume our
universe originated from something different from this universe. So
while physics can describe our universe's origin, what came before is
beyond its scope at this time, possibly in principle.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 16/02/2024 17:42, Richmond wrote:
> > Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> writes:
> >
> >>
> >> I see talk.origins as a home for arguing
> >> creationism and evolution.
> >
> > Does it include the origin of the universe?
>
> Officially no, practically yes. Or rather,
> the evolution of the universe. Or, both.
>
> I treat "creationism" as meaning only the
> doctrine, which I do not believe, that
> living things are what they are because God -
> or someone or ones or things like God -
> created them, without evolution happening.
> Or with some evolution.
>
> A chart was printed in some Christian bibles
> showing that God made everything in the year
> 4004 B.C. Mostly, it is supposed to have not
> changed much since then. Many Christians find
> scientific evidence more satisfactory than
> the chart.

Dissatisfaction started immediately after Bisshop Ussher
published his date of 4004 BC.
Others came up with slightly different dates,
but that did not really matter.

Ussher did inspire others, like Champollion,
to take up the matter more seriously.
We know what happened next: Champollion translated the hieroglyphs,
and made a beginning with Egyption history,
and succeeded in setting up an Egyptian timetable.

What it boild down to is that the biblical chronology is a fantasy
invented somewhat later than 1000 BCE. [1]
The irony of it is that Champollion had set out on his quest
with the idea that he could use Egyptian sources
to refine Ussher's accounting,

Jan

[1] For example, Ussher's date for the flood
falls right in the middle of the pyramid building period in Egypt,
without anyone in Egypt noticing it.

jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> writes:

> On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 19:49:05 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
>
>>nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) writes:
>>
>>> Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>> > On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 13:08:49 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >>jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>> On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 17:42:09 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>>Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> I see talk.origins as a home for arguing creationism and
>>>> >>>>> evolution.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>Does it include the origin of the universe?
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> In practice, TO is open to arguing any science topic which
>>>> >>> pseudoskeptics have glommed onto. That would include the origin of
>>>> >>> the universe, flat-earth, anti-vaxxers, and extraterrestrial
>>>> >>> visitors.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>I think humans have evolved to assume everything has an origin because
>>>> >>everything they come across on earth has an origin. But whether the
>>>> >>universe has an origin is rather doubtful, in my opinion.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > As you say, that's your personal opinion. Do you have a basis for it?
>>>>
>>>> According to "Emerging Spacetime" theory, space and time are not
>>>> fundamental attributes of the universe, but emerging spacetime proposes
>>>> they arise from deeper, more fundamental structures and processes.
>>>>
>>>> Origin strikes me as being temporal, in this context, if the origin of
>>>> the universe is at some point in time, what was going on before that,
>>>> and why did it change? Although origin could mean something else, like
>>>> the origin of a river.
>>>>
>>>> So if time emerged from something more fundamental, then there cannot
>>>> have been a beginning.
>>>
>>> ???
>>> Your 'more fundamental thing' can have a beginning too,
>>>
>>
>>How can something begin when there is no time?
>
>
> My impression is your questions and comments describe the stereotype
> origin paradox "what came first, chicken or egg?" My experience is
> these are false paradoxes based on false dichotomies. Just as what
> laid the first egg was not a chicken, it's reasonable to presume our
> universe originated from something different from this universe. So
> while physics can describe our universe's origin, what came before is
> beyond its scope at this time, possibly in principle.

No, it simply follows from what I was saying before about the "emerging
spacetime" theory, "So if time emerged from something more fundamental,
then there cannot have been a beginning."

The more fundamental thing from which time emerged did not include time,
time wasn't there, so it didn't have a beginning, except in the way a
piece of string has a beginning, but that would still be there.

'Beginning' in this context at least, is temporal.

--
Hyphen hyphen space

On Sun, 18 Feb 2024 14:14:12 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com>:

>jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 19:49:05 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
>>
>>>nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) writes:
>>>
>>>> Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>> > On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 13:08:49 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> >>jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>> On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 17:42:09 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>>>Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>> >>>>> I see talk.origins as a home for arguing creationism and
>>>>> >>>>> evolution.
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>>Does it include the origin of the universe?
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> In practice, TO is open to arguing any science topic which
>>>>> >>> pseudoskeptics have glommed onto. That would include the origin of
>>>>> >>> the universe, flat-earth, anti-vaxxers, and extraterrestrial
>>>>> >>> visitors.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>I think humans have evolved to assume everything has an origin because
>>>>> >>everything they come across on earth has an origin. But whether the
>>>>> >>universe has an origin is rather doubtful, in my opinion.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > As you say, that's your personal opinion. Do you have a basis for it?
>>>>>
>>>>> According to "Emerging Spacetime" theory, space and time are not
>>>>> fundamental attributes of the universe, but emerging spacetime proposes
>>>>> they arise from deeper, more fundamental structures and processes.
>>>>>
>>>>> Origin strikes me as being temporal, in this context, if the origin of
>>>>> the universe is at some point in time, what was going on before that,
>>>>> and why did it change? Although origin could mean something else, like
>>>>> the origin of a river.
>>>>>
>>>>> So if time emerged from something more fundamental, then there cannot
>>>>> have been a beginning.
>>>>
>>>> ???
>>>> Your 'more fundamental thing' can have a beginning too,
>>>>
>>>
>>>How can something begin when there is no time?
>>
>>
>> My impression is your questions and comments describe the stereotype
>> origin paradox "what came first, chicken or egg?" My experience is
>> these are false paradoxes based on false dichotomies. Just as what
>> laid the first egg was not a chicken, it's reasonable to presume our
>> universe originated from something different from this universe. So
>> while physics can describe our universe's origin, what came before is
>> beyond its scope at this time, possibly in principle.
>
>No, it simply follows from what I was saying before about the "emerging
>spacetime" theory, "So if time emerged from something more fundamental,
>then there cannot have been a beginning."
>
>The more fundamental thing from which time emerged did not include time,
>time wasn't there, so it didn't have a beginning, except in the way a
>piece of string has a beginning, but that would still be there.
>
>'Beginning' in this context at least, is temporal.
>
Do you fail to see that your statement contains an inherent
contradiction, in that duration, however slight, is implicit
in the phrase "emerged from". And since duration implies
time, there *must* be time, or something quite similar,
involved. Or is this equivalent to "It's been discovered
that the Iliad was not written by Homer, but by another
Greek with the same name."?

So duration is zero (since there is zero time in which
duration exists). And if something has zero duration (exists
for no time at all), can we not say that it also has zero
existence?
>
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

On Sun, 18 Feb 2024 14:14:12 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:

>jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 19:49:05 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
>>
>>>nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) writes:
>>>
>>>> Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>> > On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 13:08:49 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> >>jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>> On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 17:42:09 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>>>Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>> >>>>> I see talk.origins as a home for arguing creationism and
>>>>> >>>>> evolution.
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>>Does it include the origin of the universe?
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> In practice, TO is open to arguing any science topic which
>>>>> >>> pseudoskeptics have glommed onto. That would include the origin of
>>>>> >>> the universe, flat-earth, anti-vaxxers, and extraterrestrial
>>>>> >>> visitors.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>I think humans have evolved to assume everything has an origin because
>>>>> >>everything they come across on earth has an origin. But whether the
>>>>> >>universe has an origin is rather doubtful, in my opinion.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > As you say, that's your personal opinion. Do you have a basis for it?
>>>>>
>>>>> According to "Emerging Spacetime" theory, space and time are not
>>>>> fundamental attributes of the universe, but emerging spacetime proposes
>>>>> they arise from deeper, more fundamental structures and processes.
>>>>>
>>>>> Origin strikes me as being temporal, in this context, if the origin of
>>>>> the universe is at some point in time, what was going on before that,
>>>>> and why did it change? Although origin could mean something else, like
>>>>> the origin of a river.
>>>>>
>>>>> So if time emerged from something more fundamental, then there cannot
>>>>> have been a beginning.
>>>>
>>>> ???
>>>> Your 'more fundamental thing' can have a beginning too,
>>>>
>>>
>>>How can something begin when there is no time?
>>
>>
>> My impression is your questions and comments describe the stereotype
>> origin paradox "what came first, chicken or egg?" My experience is
>> these are false paradoxes based on false dichotomies. Just as what
>> laid the first egg was not a chicken, it's reasonable to presume our
>> universe originated from something different from this universe. So
>> while physics can describe our universe's origin, what came before is
>> beyond its scope at this time, possibly in principle.
>
>No, it simply follows from what I was saying before about the "emerging
>spacetime" theory, "So if time emerged from something more fundamental,
>then there cannot have been a beginning."

ISTM your conclusion doesn't logically follow from your premise. I
don't recall reading anybody besides yourself asserting it.

My understanding of emerging spacetime theory considers time starting
*for this universe* when this universe originated. Presuming there
was no time before this universe, would by definition render
meaningless considering what came before this universe, just as it's
meaningless to consider what's north of the North Pole.

>The more fundamental thing from which time emerged did not include time,
>time wasn't there, so it didn't have a beginning, except in the way a
>piece of string has a beginning, but that would still be there.
>
>'Beginning' in this context at least, is temporal.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

On Sun, 18 Feb 2024 14:10:06 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>:

>On Sun, 18 Feb 2024 14:14:12 +0000, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com>:
>
>>jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 19:49:05 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 13:08:49 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >>jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>> On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 17:42:09 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>>>Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>> I see talk.origins as a home for arguing creationism and
>>>>>> >>>>> evolution.
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>>Does it include the origin of the universe?
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> In practice, TO is open to arguing any science topic which
>>>>>> >>> pseudoskeptics have glommed onto. That would include the origin of
>>>>>> >>> the universe, flat-earth, anti-vaxxers, and extraterrestrial
>>>>>> >>> visitors.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>I think humans have evolved to assume everything has an origin because
>>>>>> >>everything they come across on earth has an origin. But whether the
>>>>>> >>universe has an origin is rather doubtful, in my opinion.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > As you say, that's your personal opinion. Do you have a basis for it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> According to "Emerging Spacetime" theory, space and time are not
>>>>>> fundamental attributes of the universe, but emerging spacetime proposes
>>>>>> they arise from deeper, more fundamental structures and processes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Origin strikes me as being temporal, in this context, if the origin of
>>>>>> the universe is at some point in time, what was going on before that,
>>>>>> and why did it change? Although origin could mean something else, like
>>>>>> the origin of a river.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So if time emerged from something more fundamental, then there cannot
>>>>>> have been a beginning.
>>>>>
>>>>> ???
>>>>> Your 'more fundamental thing' can have a beginning too,
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>How can something begin when there is no time?
>>>
>>>
>>> My impression is your questions and comments describe the stereotype
>>> origin paradox "what came first, chicken or egg?" My experience is
>>> these are false paradoxes based on false dichotomies. Just as what
>>> laid the first egg was not a chicken, it's reasonable to presume our
>>> universe originated from something different from this universe. So
>>> while physics can describe our universe's origin, what came before is
>>> beyond its scope at this time, possibly in principle.
>>
>>No, it simply follows from what I was saying before about the "emerging
>>spacetime" theory, "So if time emerged from something more fundamental,
>>then there cannot have been a beginning."
>>
>>The more fundamental thing from which time emerged did not include time,
>>time wasn't there, so it didn't have a beginning, except in the way a
>>piece of string has a beginning, but that would still be there.
>>
>>'Beginning' in this context at least, is temporal.
>>
>Do you fail to see that your statement contains an inherent
>contradiction, in that duration, however slight, is implicit
>in the phrase "emerged from". And since duration implies
>time, there *must* be time, or something quite similar,
>involved. Or is this equivalent to "It's been discovered
>that the Iliad was not written by Homer, but by another
>Greek with the same name."?
>
>So duration is zero (since there is zero time in which
>duration exists). And if something has zero duration (exists
>for no time at all), can we not say that it also has zero
>existence?
>>
So, no reply? OK.
>
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

On 2/16/24 9:42 AM, Richmond wrote:
> Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> writes:
>
>>
>> I see talk.origins as a home for arguing
>> creationism and evolution.
>
> Does it include the origin of the universe?

Yes.

--
Mark Isaak
"Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell

On Sun, 18 Feb 2024 14:10:06 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>:

>On Sun, 18 Feb 2024 14:14:12 +0000, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com>:
>
>>jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 19:49:05 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 13:08:49 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >>jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>> On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 17:42:09 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>>>Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>> I see talk.origins as a home for arguing creationism and
>>>>>> >>>>> evolution.
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>>Does it include the origin of the universe?
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> In practice, TO is open to arguing any science topic which
>>>>>> >>> pseudoskeptics have glommed onto. That would include the origin of
>>>>>> >>> the universe, flat-earth, anti-vaxxers, and extraterrestrial
>>>>>> >>> visitors.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>I think humans have evolved to assume everything has an origin because
>>>>>> >>everything they come across on earth has an origin. But whether the
>>>>>> >>universe has an origin is rather doubtful, in my opinion.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > As you say, that's your personal opinion. Do you have a basis for it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> According to "Emerging Spacetime" theory, space and time are not
>>>>>> fundamental attributes of the universe, but emerging spacetime proposes
>>>>>> they arise from deeper, more fundamental structures and processes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Origin strikes me as being temporal, in this context, if the origin of
>>>>>> the universe is at some point in time, what was going on before that,
>>>>>> and why did it change? Although origin could mean something else, like
>>>>>> the origin of a river.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So if time emerged from something more fundamental, then there cannot
>>>>>> have been a beginning.
>>>>>
>>>>> ???
>>>>> Your 'more fundamental thing' can have a beginning too,
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>How can something begin when there is no time?
>>>
>>>
>>> My impression is your questions and comments describe the stereotype
>>> origin paradox "what came first, chicken or egg?" My experience is
>>> these are false paradoxes based on false dichotomies. Just as what
>>> laid the first egg was not a chicken, it's reasonable to presume our
>>> universe originated from something different from this universe. So
>>> while physics can describe our universe's origin, what came before is
>>> beyond its scope at this time, possibly in principle.
>>
>>No, it simply follows from what I was saying before about the "emerging
>>spacetime" theory, "So if time emerged from something more fundamental,
>>then there cannot have been a beginning."
>>
>>The more fundamental thing from which time emerged did not include time,
>>time wasn't there, so it didn't have a beginning, except in the way a
>>piece of string has a beginning, but that would still be there.
>>
>>'Beginning' in this context at least, is temporal.
>>
>Do you fail to see that your statement contains an inherent
>contradiction, in that duration, however slight, is implicit
>in the phrase "emerged from". And since duration implies
>time, there *must* be time, or something quite similar,
>involved. Or is this equivalent to "It's been discovered
>that the Iliad was not written by Homer, but by another
>Greek with the same name."?
>
>So duration is zero (since there is zero time in which
>duration exists). And if something has zero duration (exists
>for no time at all), can we not say that it also has zero
>existence?
>>
So, no reply? OK.
>
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov