Author Topic: @H  (Read 22252 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ħ

  • Posts: 3247
  • Gender: Male
Re: @H
« Reply #105 on: January 30, 2012, 01:30:06 PM »
No.
Really?  What is all that "from everlasting to everlasting" gibberish in the Good Book about?
I think the correct translation is "from age to age".  If God existed before time, then we wouldn't say God is eternal in the traditional sense (i.e. God began to exist at t= -∞ and continued to exist until t = ∞).  That would mean that the universe would never have come into existence.
"All great works are prepared in the desert, including the redemption of the world. The precursors, the followers, the Master Himself, all obeyed or have to obey one and the same law. Prophets, apostles, preachers, martyrs, pioneers of knowledge, inspired artists in every art, ordinary men and the Man-God, all pay tribute to loneliness, to the life of silence, to the night." - A. G. Sertillanges

Offline hefdaddy42

  • Et in Arcadia Ego
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 52780
  • Gender: Male
  • Postwhore Emeritus
Re: @H
« Reply #106 on: January 30, 2012, 01:37:38 PM »
If he didn't exist before time, then how did he create everything?
Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Offline eric42434224

  • Posts: 4174
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: @H
« Reply #107 on: January 30, 2012, 01:38:52 PM »
"If the universe were not curved like a sphere but had a flat topology, it could be both unbounded and infinite. The curvature of the universe can be measured through multipole moments in the spectrum of the cosmic background radiation. As to date, analysis of the radiation patterns recorded by the WMAP spacecraft hints that the universe has a flat topology. This would be consistent with an infinite physical universe."

"However, there are some theoretical circumstances where the end result is infinity. One example is the singularity in the description of black holes. Some solutions of the equations of the general theory of relativity allow for finite mass distributions of zero size, and thus infinite density."

All I see from you are philosphical arguements that actual infinity cant exist....like the counting example.  What if the man isnt counting down to zero....what if the person counted any number today, and doubled (or halved) the number?  Going to the past halving the number will always result in a number that can be halved.  Going to the future and doubling the number will always result in aa number that can be doubled.  You are also assuming that time is uniform.  We dont know what happens to time under some circumstances...like at or before the big bang....or in the future.

In short, just like the assertion of the universe having a specific beginning and end, the assertion that actual infinity cant exist is pure speculation at this point.
« Last Edit: January 30, 2012, 01:49:52 PM by eric42434224 »
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline Ħ

  • Posts: 3247
  • Gender: Male
Re: @H
« Reply #108 on: January 30, 2012, 01:51:10 PM »
If he didn't exist before time, then how did he create everything?
He's the timeless Prime Mover. I can't tell you how he created something out of nothing, or how he created time without time. He's God and can do nearly whatever he wants.

Anyway, you run into that regress problem with or without God, so I don't think that's a disproof of God at all.

"If the universe were not curved like a sphere but had a flat topology, it could be both unbounded and infinite. The curvature of the universe can be measured through multipole moments in the spectrum of the cosmic background radiation. As to date, analysis of the radiation patterns recorded by the WMAP spacecraft hints that the universe has a flat topology. This would be consistent with an infinite physical universe."

"However, there are some theoretical circumstances where the end result is infinity. One example is the singularity in the description of black holes. Some solutions of the equations of the general theory of relativity allow for finite mass distributions of zero size, and thus infinite density."

All I see from you are philosphical arguements that actual infinity cant exist....like the counting example.  What if the man isnt counting down....what if the person counted 1 today, and doubled (or halved) the number?  Going to the past halving the number will always result in a number that can be halved.  Going to the future and doubling the number will always result in aa number that can be doubled.
Can you expand on this a little more? I don't see how it shows that the universe is infinite.  Modern cosmologists believe that the universe is 13.75 billion years old. It doesn't matter if the rate of time has increased/decreased during the universe's history.  13.75 billion years, whether it's doubled, quadrupled, or raised to the zillionth power, is not infinity.
"All great works are prepared in the desert, including the redemption of the world. The precursors, the followers, the Master Himself, all obeyed or have to obey one and the same law. Prophets, apostles, preachers, martyrs, pioneers of knowledge, inspired artists in every art, ordinary men and the Man-God, all pay tribute to loneliness, to the life of silence, to the night." - A. G. Sertillanges

Offline eric42434224

  • Posts: 4174
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: @H
« Reply #109 on: January 30, 2012, 01:52:34 PM »
If god is not infinite, then by your assertion, god had a beginning and an end.  If something with a beginning has a cause, then something had to initiate that beginning.....then he wasnt god....and neither can  whatever started him.....so on and so forth into infinity.  By saying something cant be infinite, arent you saying there cant even be a god or prime mover?
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline hefdaddy42

  • Et in Arcadia Ego
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 52780
  • Gender: Male
  • Postwhore Emeritus
Re: @H
« Reply #110 on: January 30, 2012, 01:53:56 PM »
If he didn't exist before time, then how did he create everything?
He's the timeless Prime Mover. I can't tell you how he created something out of nothing, or how he created time without time. He's God and can do nearly whatever he wants.

Anyway, you run into that regress problem with or without God, so I don't think that's a disproof of God at all.
I'm not trying to disprove God.  I believe in God.  I'm just trying to better understand your conception of God.

If he is the timeless Prime Mover, then how can he NOT be infinite?
Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Offline eric42434224

  • Posts: 4174
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: @H
« Reply #111 on: January 30, 2012, 01:54:28 PM »
If he didn't exist before time, then how did he create everything?
He's the timeless Prime Mover. I can't tell you how he created something out of nothing, or how he created time without time. He's God and can do nearly whatever he wants.

Anyway, you run into that regress problem with or without God, so I don't think that's a disproof of God at all.

"If the universe were not curved like a sphere but had a flat topology, it could be both unbounded and infinite. The curvature of the universe can be measured through multipole moments in the spectrum of the cosmic background radiation. As to date, analysis of the radiation patterns recorded by the WMAP spacecraft hints that the universe has a flat topology. This would be consistent with an infinite physical universe."

"However, there are some theoretical circumstances where the end result is infinity. One example is the singularity in the description of black holes. Some solutions of the equations of the general theory of relativity allow for finite mass distributions of zero size, and thus infinite density."

All I see from you are philosphical arguements that actual infinity cant exist....like the counting example.  What if the man isnt counting down....what if the person counted 1 today, and doubled (or halved) the number?  Going to the past halving the number will always result in a number that can be halved.  Going to the future and doubling the number will always result in aa number that can be doubled.
Can you expand on this a little more? I don't see how it shows that the universe is infinite.  Modern cosmologists believe that the universe is 13.75 billion years old. It doesn't matter if the rate of time has increased/decreased during the universe's history.  13.75 billion years, whether it's doubled, quadrupled, or raised to the zillionth power, is not infinity.

It is believed that it has been 13.75 B years since the big bang.  What does that have to do with how old the universe is?  That is just how old it is since the bang....it does not address what happened before the big bang.

And it is mathematically and theoretically possible for the universe to be infinite and come from nothing. 
Not saying it is....just that it is possible, and you really cant say it isnt possible.
« Last Edit: January 30, 2012, 02:00:27 PM by eric42434224 »
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline Ħ

  • Posts: 3247
  • Gender: Male
Re: @H
« Reply #112 on: January 30, 2012, 01:56:26 PM »
If god is not infinite, then by your assertion, god had a beginning and an end.  If something with a beginning has a cause, then something had to initiate that beginning.....then he wasnt god....and neither can  whatever started him.....so on and so forth into infinity.  By saying something cant be infinite, arent you saying there cant even be a god or prime mover?
No. I'm saying that if something can't be infinite, then there must be a prime mover. The universe scientifically isn't and philosophically can't be infinite. So it must have a prime mover. When it comes to things that are outside of time (i.e. God), I don't think it's fair to apply words like "beginning", "end", and "infinite", since those are all time-dependent words.
"All great works are prepared in the desert, including the redemption of the world. The precursors, the followers, the Master Himself, all obeyed or have to obey one and the same law. Prophets, apostles, preachers, martyrs, pioneers of knowledge, inspired artists in every art, ordinary men and the Man-God, all pay tribute to loneliness, to the life of silence, to the night." - A. G. Sertillanges

Offline bosk1

  • King of Misdirection
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12786
  • Bow down to Boskaryus
Re: @H
« Reply #113 on: January 30, 2012, 01:58:31 PM »
It is believed that it has been 13.75 B years since the big bang. 

After reading through this entire thread, trust me when I say it feels like it has been a lot longer.



And El Jonno and Omega, if I continue to see personal attacks, the both of you are outta here.  You already been warned in the thread.
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline Ħ

  • Posts: 3247
  • Gender: Male
Re: @H
« Reply #114 on: January 30, 2012, 02:00:28 PM »
If he didn't exist before time, then how did he create everything?
He's the timeless Prime Mover. I can't tell you how he created something out of nothing, or how he created time without time. He's God and can do nearly whatever he wants.

Anyway, you run into that regress problem with or without God, so I don't think that's a disproof of God at all.
I'm not trying to disprove God.  I believe in God.  I'm just trying to better understand your conception of God.

If he is the timeless Prime Mover, then how can he NOT be infinite?
I am trying to be very careful with my vocabulary here. So far I've used "infinite" to describe something that is time-dependent. God is outside of time (must be, or we run into the infinite-number-of-past-events problem), and so I don't want to call him "infinite". That would be like saying "God began to exist an infinite number of years ago" which makes no sense. I think "omnipresent" is a better word.
"All great works are prepared in the desert, including the redemption of the world. The precursors, the followers, the Master Himself, all obeyed or have to obey one and the same law. Prophets, apostles, preachers, martyrs, pioneers of knowledge, inspired artists in every art, ordinary men and the Man-God, all pay tribute to loneliness, to the life of silence, to the night." - A. G. Sertillanges

Offline eric42434224

  • Posts: 4174
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: @H
« Reply #115 on: January 30, 2012, 02:00:59 PM »
If god is not infinite, then by your assertion, god had a beginning and an end.  If something with a beginning has a cause, then something had to initiate that beginning.....then he wasnt god....and neither can  whatever started him.....so on and so forth into infinity.  By saying something cant be infinite, arent you saying there cant even be a god or prime mover?
No. I'm saying that if something can't be infinite, then there must be a prime mover. The universe scientifically isn't and philosophically can't be infinite. So it must have a prime mover. When it comes to things that are outside of time (i.e. God), I don't think it's fair to apply words like "beginning", "end", and "infinite", since those are all time-dependent words.

No.  It is theoretically and mathematically possible for the universe to be infinite and come from nothing.  Not saying it is, but it is possible.  If a universe can be infinite and come from nothing, a prime mover isnt necessary.
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline Ħ

  • Posts: 3247
  • Gender: Male
Re: @H
« Reply #116 on: January 30, 2012, 02:05:26 PM »
If god is not infinite, then by your assertion, god had a beginning and an end.  If something with a beginning has a cause, then something had to initiate that beginning.....then he wasnt god....and neither can  whatever started him.....so on and so forth into infinity.  By saying something cant be infinite, arent you saying there cant even be a god or prime mover?
No. I'm saying that if something can't be infinite, then there must be a prime mover. The universe scientifically isn't and philosophically can't be infinite. So it must have a prime mover. When it comes to things that are outside of time (i.e. God), I don't think it's fair to apply words like "beginning", "end", and "infinite", since those are all time-dependent words.

No.  It is theoretically and mathematically possible for the universe to be infinite and come from nothing.  Not saying it is, but it is possible.  If a universe can be infinite and come from nothing, a prime mover isnt necessary.
Back to this again? No, it's NOT. It is an impossibility to have an infinite series of past events. This has been explained again and again. When will you just concede this point?
"All great works are prepared in the desert, including the redemption of the world. The precursors, the followers, the Master Himself, all obeyed or have to obey one and the same law. Prophets, apostles, preachers, martyrs, pioneers of knowledge, inspired artists in every art, ordinary men and the Man-God, all pay tribute to loneliness, to the life of silence, to the night." - A. G. Sertillanges

Offline hefdaddy42

  • Et in Arcadia Ego
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 52780
  • Gender: Male
  • Postwhore Emeritus
Re: @H
« Reply #117 on: January 30, 2012, 02:10:35 PM »
If he didn't exist before time, then how did he create everything?
He's the timeless Prime Mover. I can't tell you how he created something out of nothing, or how he created time without time. He's God and can do nearly whatever he wants.

Anyway, you run into that regress problem with or without God, so I don't think that's a disproof of God at all.
I'm not trying to disprove God.  I believe in God.  I'm just trying to better understand your conception of God.

If he is the timeless Prime Mover, then how can he NOT be infinite?
I am trying to be very careful with my vocabulary here. So far I've used "infinite" to describe something that is time-dependent. God is outside of time (must be, or we run into the infinite-number-of-past-events problem), and so I don't want to call him "infinite". That would be like saying "God began to exist an infinite number of years ago" which makes no sense. I think "omnipresent" is a better word.
OK, I now understand your terminology.

However, to say that God is NOT infinite means that he IS finite.  Basic logic of the words in play.

So, how do you explain a finite God?
Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Offline Ħ

  • Posts: 3247
  • Gender: Male
Re: @H
« Reply #118 on: January 30, 2012, 02:13:19 PM »
I think the terms "infinite" and "finite" can only be applied to things that are time-dependent. So I'd say God is neither.
"All great works are prepared in the desert, including the redemption of the world. The precursors, the followers, the Master Himself, all obeyed or have to obey one and the same law. Prophets, apostles, preachers, martyrs, pioneers of knowledge, inspired artists in every art, ordinary men and the Man-God, all pay tribute to loneliness, to the life of silence, to the night." - A. G. Sertillanges

Offline eric42434224

  • Posts: 4174
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: @H
« Reply #119 on: January 30, 2012, 02:13:52 PM »
If god is not infinite, then by your assertion, god had a beginning and an end.  If something with a beginning has a cause, then something had to initiate that beginning.....then he wasnt god....and neither can  whatever started him.....so on and so forth into infinity.  By saying something cant be infinite, arent you saying there cant even be a god or prime mover?
No. I'm saying that if something can't be infinite, then there must be a prime mover. The universe scientifically isn't and philosophically can't be infinite. So it must have a prime mover. When it comes to things that are outside of time (i.e. God), I don't think it's fair to apply words like "beginning", "end", and "infinite", since those are all time-dependent words.

No.  It is theoretically and mathematically possible for the universe to be infinite and come from nothing.  Not saying it is, but it is possible.  If a universe can be infinite and come from nothing, a prime mover isnt necessary.
Back to this again? No, it's NOT. It is an impossibility to have an infinite series of past events. This has been explained again and again. When will you just concede this point?

It is theoretically and mathematically possible for the universe to be infinite and come from nothing.
Please read about the possible shapes of the universe and their implications....I will await you concession.
« Last Edit: January 30, 2012, 02:35:22 PM by eric42434224 »
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline Omega

  • Posts: 805
  • Gender: Male
Re: @H
« Reply #120 on: January 30, 2012, 02:30:21 PM »
I placed the *sigh* there because I seemingly have to individually spend 10 posts dedicated to a single poster simply to establish a scientific fact. The universe cannot have existed forever. If it had, the universe would have reached heat death.

It doesn't matter how many posts you devote to it it still won't be a scientific fact.

You're conflating the apparent beginning of the configuration we see of the known universe, that demarcated the rapid inflationary period of the universe from the big bang singularity, with an absolute beginning of the universe.

That very singularity tells us that our model of physical laws is incomplete and thus we simply cannot currently say what configuration the universe was in at that moment.

https://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/04/27/how-did-the-universe-start/

What possible configurations are you referring to?

He doesnt know...there are just theories.  I think that is his (and my) entire point.  We do not know what configuration the universe was in at or before that very instance, or if there was even a universe at all.  To insist that it is scientific fact is incorrect.  To insist that it is scientific fact that the universe will end in HD is also incorrect.  There is simply too much we do not know, and to claim to know is clearly an assumption.....and you know what they say about assuming.  ;)

Yet that is an invalid counterpoint. While it is obviously not a fact (which is a word I must admit I misused), there is an overwhelming amount of cosmological evidence that points to the absolute beginning of the universe. An analogy is the theory of evolution. While one may argue that it is a mere theory and not a "fact," enough evidence has been unearthed and examined as to deem evolution a proper certainty. Also, why dismiss or ignore the conclusion that three highly reputable and leading cosmologists / physicist (Borde, Guth, Vilenkin) reached so eagerly?

Yet to the main point: what makes the Bode-Guth-Vilenkin theorem so powerful is that it holds regardless of the physical description of the very early universe. Because we don't yet have a quantum theory of gravity, we are not able to provide a physical description of the first split second of the early universe. But the BGV Theorem is independent of any physical description of the early universe. Their theorem implies that the early quantum vacuum state of the early universe (which is often erroneously and misleadingly categorized as "nothing") cannot be eternal in the past but must have had an absolute beginning. Even if our universe is just a part of a multiverse, composed of many universes, the theorem itself implies the multiverse itself must have a beginning. Highly speculative scenarios such as loop-quantum gravity models, string models, even closed time-like curves have been proposed to try to avoid this absolute beginning. However these models are fraught with problems and the bottom line is that none of these theories even if true succeed in restoring an eternal past. At most, they merely push the beginning back a step.
« Last Edit: January 30, 2012, 03:58:35 PM by Omega »
ΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩ

Offline Omega

  • Posts: 805
  • Gender: Male
Re: @H
« Reply #121 on: January 30, 2012, 02:34:03 PM »
If he didn't exist before time, then how did he create everything?

It would be more accurate to say that God exists independently of time rather than before (because existing before time isn't reasonable).
« Last Edit: January 30, 2012, 02:50:44 PM by Omega »
ΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩ

Offline Omega

  • Posts: 805
  • Gender: Male
Re: @H
« Reply #122 on: January 30, 2012, 02:37:10 PM »
Something that needs to be posted:

1) An actual infinite cannot exist.
2) An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.
3) Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.

The key term here is "actual" as in material. No infinitely material actuality exists and cannot exist. Infinity is merely something that manifests itself immaterially (numbers, patterns, etc).
ΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩ

Offline Ħ

  • Posts: 3247
  • Gender: Male
Re: @H
« Reply #123 on: January 30, 2012, 02:38:51 PM »
Something that needs to be posted:

1) An actual infinite cannot exist.
2) An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.
3) Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.

The key term here is "actual" as in material. No infinitely material actuality exists and cannot exist. Infinity is merely something that manifests itself immaterially (numbers, patterns, etc).
Yep. Should have been more discreet.
"All great works are prepared in the desert, including the redemption of the world. The precursors, the followers, the Master Himself, all obeyed or have to obey one and the same law. Prophets, apostles, preachers, martyrs, pioneers of knowledge, inspired artists in every art, ordinary men and the Man-God, all pay tribute to loneliness, to the life of silence, to the night." - A. G. Sertillanges

Offline Omega

  • Posts: 805
  • Gender: Male
Re: @H
« Reply #124 on: January 30, 2012, 02:39:25 PM »
It is believed that it has been 13.75 B years since the big bang. 

After reading through this entire thread, trust me when I say it feels like it has been a lot longer.



And El Jonno and Omega, if I continue to see personal attacks, the both of you are outta here.  You already been warned in the thread.

Sorry Coach. He was spitting in both my old man's face and mine. Emotions flared somewhat. I don't plan on letting that happen again.

*sheaths sword*
ΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩ

Offline Omega

  • Posts: 805
  • Gender: Male
Re: @H
« Reply #125 on: January 30, 2012, 02:42:29 PM »
Something that needs to be posted:

1) An actual infinite cannot exist.
2) An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.
3) Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.

The key term here is "actual" as in material. No infinitely material actuality exists and cannot exist. Infinity is merely something that manifests itself immaterially (numbers, patterns, etc).
Yep. Should have been more discreet.

Not at all. That is what why "actual" is placed before "infinite." The argument is phrased adequately. People responding simply didn't understand what an actual infinity was referring to.
ΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩ

Offline eric42434224

  • Posts: 4174
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: @H
« Reply #126 on: January 30, 2012, 02:47:44 PM »
Yet that is an invalid counterpoint. While it is obviously not a fact (which is a word I must admit I misused), there is an overwhelming amount of cosmological evidence that points to the absolute beginning of the universe. An analogy is the theory of evolution. While one may argue that it is a mere theory and not a "fact," enough evidence has been unearthed and examined as to deem evolution a proper certainty. Also, why dismiss or ignore the conclusion that three highly reputable and leading cosmologists / physicist (Borde, Guth, Vilenkin) reached so eagerly?

You still completely miss the point, as does H.  What you call the "beginning" of the universe may not be the "beginning".  It is very simple.  It is unknown what happened before inflation, therefore the big bang could merely be the initiatioon of a new cycle or state.  Period.  This has nothing to do with the big bang....but what happened before.


Yet to the main point: what makes the Bode-Guth-Vilenkin theorem so powerful is that it holds regardless of the physical description of the very early universe. Because we don't yet have a quantum theory of gravity, we are not able to provide a physical description of the first split second of the early universe. But the BGV Theorem is independent of any physical description of the early universe. Their theorum implies that the early quantum vaccum state of the early universe (which is often erroneously and misleadingly categorized as "nothing") cannot be eternal in the past but must have had an absolute beginning. Even if our universe is just a part of a multiverse, composed of many universes, the theorem itself implies the multiverse itself must have a beginning. Highly speculative scenarios such as loop-quantum gravity models, string models, even closed time-like curves have been proposed to try to avoid this absolute beginning. However these models are fraught with problems and the bottom line is that none of these theories even if true succeed in restoring an eternal past. At most, they merely push the beginning back a step.

Again...the first split second of the what may only be the current version/cycle/stage of the universe.  Their theories have nothing to do with what came before.

It is clear that you desperatly need to beleive that the universe has a beginning, when that is simply not even close to being established.

This discussion with you reminds me of, to use your analogy, evolution.  You are railing on about the fact of evolution, when I am talking about abiogenesis.

I will make it simple, and fully agree that the big bang happened.  It was the beginning of the universe as we know it.  But you cant explain what happened BEFORE.  You dont know, and neither do any scientists or physicists.  There are theories and even physical evidence regarding the shape of the universe.....and with some shapes there is no end to the universe.  It is theoretically and mathematically possible to be infinite and come from nothing.

I hope you are now understanding of the distinction, so we dont have to discuss this point any further.
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline eric42434224

  • Posts: 4174
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: @H
« Reply #127 on: January 30, 2012, 02:50:48 PM »
Something that needs to be posted:

1) An actual infinite cannot exist.
2) An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.
3) Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.

The key term here is "actual" as in material. No infinitely material actuality exists and cannot exist. Infinity is merely something that manifests itself immaterially (numbers, patterns, etc).
Yep. Should have been more discreet.

Not at all. That is what why "actual" is placed before "infinite." The argument is phrased adequately. People responding simply didn't understand what an actual infinity was referring to.

You seem so sure of yourself, yet theoretical physicists do not agree.
Instead of just saying, why not post a reference where that fact is stated and proven.
It is theorized that we can only observe an infintesimal potion of the universe, and that it may go out infinitely.
It is possible, regardless of how much you dont want it to be.
It is possible that the universe is infinite and can come from nothing. 
« Last Edit: January 30, 2012, 03:02:52 PM by eric42434224 »
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline eric42434224

  • Posts: 4174
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: @H
« Reply #128 on: January 30, 2012, 03:01:38 PM »
I feel I must leave this thread again as we have come full circle, and fear it will be an infinite loop.  Pun intended.

It is clear to me at least, that both Omega and H are firmly entrenched in a view that has simply not been proven....not even close.  Perhaps it is a required view as a foundation of their beliefs and faith...not sure.  But it is disheartening to have a discussion where ideas and theories are stated as uncontrovertible fact.
We used to be certain the earth was flat and the center of the universe.
It is not conducive to any form of discussion, and as such, I will bow out.
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline Omega

  • Posts: 805
  • Gender: Male
Re: @H
« Reply #129 on: January 30, 2012, 03:08:01 PM »
Yet that is an invalid counterpoint. While it is obviously not a fact (which is a word I must admit I misused), there is an overwhelming amount of cosmological evidence that points to the absolute beginning of the universe. An analogy is the theory of evolution. While one may argue that it is a mere theory and not a "fact," enough evidence has been unearthed and examined as to deem evolution a proper certainty. Also, why dismiss or ignore the conclusion that three highly reputable and leading cosmologists / physicist (Borde, Guth, Vilenkin) reached so eagerly?

You still completely miss the point, as does H.  What you call the "beginning" of the universe may not be the "beginning".  It is very simple.  It is unknown what happened before inflation, therefore the big bang could merely be the initiatioon of a new cycle or state.  Period.  This has nothing to do with the big bang....but what happened before.

I concede that. For the sake of argument, though, let's say that 3 previous universes (or past-inflationary models) ultimate caused our own to come into existence. Our universe would not have an absolute beginning, no, but the absolute beginning would merely be inherited by the first universe in the past-inflationary hierarchy. In other words, no, our universe may not be the absolute beginning of existence, but the absolute beginning of existence is unavoidable.


Yet to the main point: what makes the Bode-Guth-Vilenkin theorem so powerful is that it holds regardless of the physical description of the very early universe. Because we don't yet have a quantum theory of gravity, we are not able to provide a physical description of the first split second of the early universe. But the BGV Theorem is independent of any physical description of the early universe. Their theorum implies that the early quantum vaccum state of the early universe (which is often erroneously and misleadingly categorized as "nothing") cannot be eternal in the past but must have had an absolute beginning. Even if our universe is just a part of a multiverse, composed of many universes, the theorem itself implies the multiverse itself must have a beginning. Highly speculative scenarios such as loop-quantum gravity models, string models, even closed time-like curves have been proposed to try to avoid this absolute beginning. However these models are fraught with problems and the bottom line is that none of these theories even if true succeed in restoring an eternal past. At most, they merely push the beginning back a step.
Quote
Again...the first split second of the what may only be the current version/cycle/stage of the universe.  Their theories have nothing to do with what came before.

It is clear that you desperatly need to beleive that the universe has a beginning, when that is simply not even close to being established.

This discussion with you reminds me of, to use your analogy, evolution.  You are railing on about the fact of evolution, when I am talking about abiogenesis.

I will make it simple, and fully agree that the big bang happened.  It was the beginning of the universe as we know it.  But you cant explain what happened BEFORE.  You dont know, and neither do any scientists or physicists.  There are theories and even physical evidence regarding the shape of the universe.....and with some shapes there is no end to the universe.  It is theoretically and mathematically possible to be infinite and come from nothing.

I hope you are now understanding of the distinction, so we dont have to discuss this point any further.

Eh...

Quote
Yet to the main point: what makes the Bode-Guth-Vilenkin theorem so powerful is that it holds regardless of the physical description of the very early universe. Because we don't yet have a quantum theory of gravity, we are not able to provide a physical description of the first split second of the early universe. But the BGV Theorem is independent of any physical description of the early universe. Their theorum implies that the early quantum vaccum state of the early universe (which is often erroneously and misleadingly categorized as "nothing") cannot be eternal in the past but must have had an absolute beginning. Even if our universe is just a part of a multiverse, composed of many universes, the theorem itself implies the multiverse itself must have a beginning. Highly speculative scenarios such as loop-quantum gravity models, string models, even closed time-like curves have been proposed to try to avoid this absolute beginning. However these models are fraught with problems and the bottom line is that none of these theories even if true succeed in restoring an eternal past. At most, they merely push the beginning back a step.

This part that I highlighted addresses how the BGV Theorem would apply even to proposed past-universe models...
« Last Edit: January 30, 2012, 03:16:58 PM by Omega »
ΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩ

Offline Omega

  • Posts: 805
  • Gender: Male
Re: @H
« Reply #130 on: January 30, 2012, 03:09:08 PM »
Something that needs to be posted:

1) An actual infinite cannot exist.
2) An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.
3) Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.

The key term here is "actual" as in material. No infinitely material actuality exists and cannot exist. Infinity is merely something that manifests itself immaterially (numbers, patterns, etc).
Yep. Should have been more discreet.

Not at all. That is what why "actual" is placed before "infinite." The argument is phrased adequately. People responding simply didn't understand what an actual infinity was referring to.

You seem so sure of yourself, yet theoretical physicists do not agree.
Instead of just saying, why not post a reference where that fact is stated and proven.
It is theorized that we can only observe an infintesimal potion of the universe, and that it may go out infinitely.
It is possible, regardless of how much you dont want it to be.
It is possible that the universe is infinite and can come from nothing.

 Please, no. Please reject this statement.
ΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩ

Offline Omega

  • Posts: 805
  • Gender: Male
Re: @H
« Reply #131 on: January 30, 2012, 03:12:50 PM »
I feel I must leave this thread again as we have come full circle, and fear it will be an infinite loop.  Pun intended.

It is clear to me at least, that both Omega and H are firmly entrenched in a view that has simply not been proven....not even close.  Perhaps it is a required view as a foundation of their beliefs and faith...not sure.  But it is disheartening to have a discussion where ideas and theories are stated as uncontrovertible fact.
We used to be certain the earth was flat and the center of the universe.
It is not conducive to any form of discussion, and as such, I will bow out.

That's quite ironic. You are the one who continuously regurgitates long-rejected and misleading cosmological views and has been seemingly turning a blind eye to the peer-reviewed, physicist generated conclusion / theorem I provided for the unavoidable beginning of the universe.
ΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩ

Offline eric42434224

  • Posts: 4174
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: @H
« Reply #132 on: January 30, 2012, 03:22:31 PM »
Omega;
This will be my last response to you in this thread, as I am running out of patience.  Discussing things with you has no possible chance of progress.

BGV is one of many possible theories.  Please stop treating it as the correct and proven theory.
And Im not even arguing against it...just that it is not even close to being proven, and there are other theories and possibilities.  That is where you have the massive disconnect.
Here is another theory:

The Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) has confirmed that the universe is flat with only a 0.5% margin of error.[1] Within the Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker (FLRW) model, the presently most popular shape of the Universe found to fit observational data according to cosmologists is the infinite flat model
In a flat universe, all of the local curvature and local geometry is flat. It is generally assumed that it is described by a Euclidean space, although there are some spatial geometries that are flat and bounded in one or more directions (like the surface of a cylinder, for example).
The alternative two-dimensional spaces with a Euclidean metric are the cylinder and the Möbius strip, which are bounded in one direction but not the other, and the torus and Klein bottle, which are compact.
In three dimensions, there are 10 finite closed flat 3-manifolds, of which 6 are orientable and 4 are non-orientable. The most familiar is the 3-Torus. See the doughnut theory of the universe
In the absence of dark energy, a flat universe expands forever but at a continually decelerating rate, with expansion asymptotically approaching some fixed rate. With dark energy, the expansion rate of the universe initially slows down, due to the effect of gravity, but eventually increases. The ultimate fate of the universe is the same as that of an open universe.
Euclidean space is flat and infinite, and a flat universe can have zero total energy and thus can come from nothing

Boom.  See how there are other theories out there?  Some accepted by most physicists and flying directly against your assertions?  Now can you see where I am coming from, and why is is monumentally pointless in discussing anything with you?

So no  :facepalm: please.  I should use it towards you to illustrate your complete lack of ability to consider any other possibilities and/or theories that may not feel right to you.  You have a stubborn attachment to one view, and that type of behavoir is not condusive to discussions here.

Good Day.
« Last Edit: January 30, 2012, 03:31:49 PM by eric42434224 »
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline Omega

  • Posts: 805
  • Gender: Male
Re: @H
« Reply #133 on: January 30, 2012, 03:40:15 PM »
Omega;
This will be my last response to you in this thread, as I am running out of patience.  Discussing things with you has no possible chance of progress.

BGV is one of many possible theories.  Please stop treating it as the correct and proven theory.

No... the BGV is not a theory at all. It is a theorem. These are completely different things. You are confusing the BGV Theorem to be a (pre-inflationary) model.

Quote
Here is another theory:

The Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) has confirmed that the universe is flat with only a 0.5% margin of error.[1] Within the Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker (FLRW) model, the presently most popular shape of the Universe found to fit observational data according to cosmologists is the infinite flat model
In a flat universe, all of the local curvature and local geometry is flat. It is generally assumed that it is described by a Euclidean space, although there are some spatial geometries that are flat and bounded in one or more directions (like the surface of a cylinder, for example).
The alternative two-dimensional spaces with a Euclidean metric are the cylinder and the Möbius strip, which are bounded in one direction but not the other, and the torus and Klein bottle, which are compact.
In three dimensions, there are 10 finite closed flat 3-manifolds, of which 6 are orientable and 4 are non-orientable. The most familiar is the 3-Torus. See the doughnut theory of the universe
In the absence of dark energy, a flat universe expands forever but at a continually decelerating rate, with expansion asymptotically approaching some fixed rate. With dark energy, the expansion rate of the universe initially slows down, due to the effect of gravity, but eventually increases. The ultimate fate of the universe is the same as that of an open universe.
Euclidean space is flat and infinite, and a flat universe can have zero total energy and thus can come from nothing

So no  :facepalm: please.  I should use it towards you to illustrate your complte lack of ability to consider any other possibilities and/or theories that may not feel right to you.  You have a stubborn attachment to one view, and that thype of behavoir is not condusive to discussions here.

I of course acknowledge the existence of other proposed models to explain the existence of our universe. There should be no argument there.

Yet there are also competing "theories" out there for evolution. Does this mean that because there are other proposed theories for evolution, evolution is not true? Of course not. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence that supports evolution theory. Same applies here. An overwhelming amount of evidence points to the absolute beginning of existence of our or any other conceivable universe. All other proposed models lack the structural support of strong evidence in their favor.
ΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩ

Offline Ħ

  • Posts: 3247
  • Gender: Male
Re: @H
« Reply #134 on: January 30, 2012, 03:54:13 PM »
It is possible that the universe is infinite and can come from nothing. 
There is something that needs to be addressed. You (and others) seem to think that anything is possible, and therefore anything should be considered as a plausible theory to the beginning of the universe. But there are a great deal of things that aren't possible--things that are self-contradictory. A round square, for instance, is an impossible object. It's self-contradicting. I also believe (although I may be in a minority here among theists) that complete omnipotence, as is usually attributed to God, leads to contradictions.

And it's the same with your infinite past theory. It doesn't work. Even in the theoretical, it cannot be possible for reasons that we've repeated again and again. Even if you allow for an exponentially changing rate of time, you still run into this problem.
"All great works are prepared in the desert, including the redemption of the world. The precursors, the followers, the Master Himself, all obeyed or have to obey one and the same law. Prophets, apostles, preachers, martyrs, pioneers of knowledge, inspired artists in every art, ordinary men and the Man-God, all pay tribute to loneliness, to the life of silence, to the night." - A. G. Sertillanges

Offline Omega

  • Posts: 805
  • Gender: Male
Re: @H
« Reply #135 on: January 30, 2012, 03:56:49 PM »
You (and others) seem to think that anything is possible, and therefore anything should be considered as a plausible theory to the beginning of the universe.
ΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩ

Offline eric42434224

  • Posts: 4174
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: @H
« Reply #136 on: January 30, 2012, 03:58:37 PM »
It is possible that the universe is infinite and can come from nothing. 
There is something that needs to be addressed. You (and others) seem to think that anything is possible, and therefore anything should be considered as a plausible theory to the beginning of the universe. But there are a great deal of things that aren't possible--things that are self-contradictory. A round square, for instance, is an impossible object. It's self-contradicting. I also believe (although I may be in a minority here among theists) that complete omnipotence, as is usually attributed to God, leads to contradictions.

And it's the same with your infinite past theory. It doesn't work. Even in the theoretical, it cannot be possible for reasons that we've repeated again and again. Even if you allow for an exponentially changing rate of time, you still run into this problem.

Yet there it is.  Dont believe it if you dont want to.  There is so much we havent discovered or know.  But H does know I guess.
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline Omega

  • Posts: 805
  • Gender: Male
Re: @H
« Reply #137 on: January 30, 2012, 04:02:23 PM »
It is possible that the universe is infinite and can come from nothing. 
There is something that needs to be addressed. You (and others) seem to think that anything is possible, and therefore anything should be considered as a plausible theory to the beginning of the universe. But there are a great deal of things that aren't possible--things that are self-contradictory. A round square, for instance, is an impossible object. It's self-contradicting. I also believe (although I may be in a minority here among theists) that complete omnipotence, as is usually attributed to God, leads to contradictions.

And it's the same with your infinite past theory. It doesn't work. Even in the theoretical, it cannot be possible for reasons that we've repeated again and again. Even if you allow for an exponentially changing rate of time, you still run into this problem.

Yet there it is.  Dont believe it if you dont want to.  There is so much we havent discovered or know.  But H does know I guess.

Don't believe the Earth is round or in evolution. There is so much we haven't discovered.
ΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩ

Offline Sigz

  • BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 13537
  • Gender: Male
  • THRONES FOR THE THRONE SKULL
Re: @H
« Reply #138 on: January 30, 2012, 04:11:40 PM »
Once again, even if you assume the universe had a beginning (which is entirely possible/likely), the simple fact is we have no idea what exists beyond the bounds of it. Everything you can say about it, whether that it was created by God or it exists in a multiverse or whatever, is unsubstantiated.
Quote
The world is a stage, but the play is badly cast.

Offline Omega

  • Posts: 805
  • Gender: Male
Re: @H
« Reply #139 on: January 30, 2012, 04:15:32 PM »
Once again, even if you assume the universe had a beginning (which is entirely possible/likely), the simple fact is we have no idea what exists beyond the bounds of it. Everything you can say about it, whether that it was created by God or it exists in a multiverse or whatever, is unsubstantiated.

There might not exist anything beyond its boundaries. A conclusion through scientific or empirical means would be impossible at that point. That's where philosophical arguments truly come into play. However, if it is indeed a multiverse, the BGV theorem would still apply to the multiverse, requiring an absolute beginning of the multiverse as well.

« Last Edit: January 30, 2012, 06:45:02 PM by Omega »
ΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩ