Originally posted by Jedidiah
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Natural Science 301 Guidelines
This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.
As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.
Forum Rules: Here
As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
The Universe Shouldn't Exist...
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by seer View PostWell Jim, one of the reasons why quantum creation (creation in the absence of time space or matter) is being looked at so intently is because there is no way to get to an eternal past for matter and energy.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostYou're getting way ahead of yourself seer, nobody knows that, and Vilenkins is purely speculative hypothesis.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jedidiah View PostSeer, that means your use of such science is not acceptable, Jim's on the other hand is valid.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostIt is not Jim's science that is valid, nor seer's misuse of science to justify an agenda, it is the physicists, and cosmologists whose science is valid.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostYet when I link scientists like Vilenkin or Ellis you dismiss them. Vilenkin makes the point that matter and energy can not be past eternal, "can not" - his words not mine. That we need to look for a creation even absent of time, space and matter. And Shuny you are the hypocrite here - you need matter and energy to be eternal to confirm your religious belief that matter and energy are co-eternal with your god...
As far as George Ellis he concerned is he considers the questions of origins of the universe, the multiverse, and whether our universe is eternal or not are at present unanswered questions. In this video he addresses these issues. The most important remark by him is, like me, he considers whether the universe is eternal or not an unanswered question and subject to hypothetical science beginning about 30:00 in the talk on cosmology. George Ellis does not agree with you that an eternal cosmos cannot be the case.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tq8-eLGpEHc
Note: George Ellis does not say that many of these questions cannot be answered in the future, but he does indicate that developing a coherent theory on Quqntum Gravity has not yet been achieved, and a great deal of the science of the origins of the universe would hinge of this.
I personally only consider the existence of the multiverse only possible, and not directly testable, like George Ellis proposes.Last edited by shunyadragon; 11-16-2017, 07:43 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostYou perpetually selectively cite only one maybe two scientists as if the selective dishonest citation is the authority, and this is not real science. You dishonestly dismiss other scientists that have alternate explanations using the same Quantum Mechanics. The article you cited considers only whether our universe is past eternal and not whether the greater cosmos is past eternal. Just because one scientist believes something cannot be that does not represent a 'truth' in physics and cosmology. George Ellis agrees with me on this .
As far as George Ellis he concerned is he considers the questions of origins of the universe, the multiverse, and whether our universe is eternal or not are at present unanswered questions. In this video he addresses these issues. The most important remark by him is, like me, he considers whether the universe is eternal or not an unanswered question and subject to hypothetical science beginning about 30:00 in the talk on cosmology.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tq8-eLGpEHc
And Shuny, you too are serving a religious agenda, because of the teaching of your faith you need to keep the door open for matter and energy being past eternal.Last edited by seer; 11-16-2017, 08:04 AM.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostTry not to be such an idiot Jed and say something useful.Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
sigpic
I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist
Comment
-
Logically you can't have an eternal universe. That would effectively be an actual infinity. Which makes possible all sorts of problems and contradictions.
Like why hasn't everything decayed into an entropy state? And even if new matter is being produced, you would still end up with a universe full of dead matter. In fact the universe would be completely full of matter after an infinite amount of time of it producing new matter. And if the universe itself is infinite in space (which we know it isn't) then you have even more contradictions, because if there is infinite space and time, then all imagined and unimagined possibilities have a 100% chance of occurring. You could have an infinite number of identical galaxies to our own, complete with earth and every person alive being exactly the same. You would also have a an infinite number of variations on this Earth. And a universe where there are NO duplicates is also 100% probable. Which contradicts the others. Just can't happen.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostLogically you can't have an eternal universe. That would effectively be an actual infinity. Which makes possible all sorts of problems and contradictions.
Like why hasn't everything decayed into an entropy state? And even if new matter is being produced, you would still end up with a universe full of dead matter. In fact the universe would be completely full of matter after an infinite amount of time of it producing new matter. And if the universe itself is infinite in space (which we know it isn't) then you have even more contradictions, because if there is infinite space and time, then all imagined and unimagined possibilities have a 100% chance of occurring. You could have an infinite number of identical galaxies to our own, complete with earth and every person alive being exactly the same. You would also have a an infinite number of variations on this Earth. And a universe where there are NO duplicates is also 100% probable. Which contradicts the others. Just can't happen.
I'd also wonder if the "can't have inifinte past" takes into account an infinitude of infinitely large universes which themselves spawn an infinitude of child universes. Seems the concepts proposed are necessarily presuming a finite set of universes and/or some finite extent to those universes at some epoch N and then working backwards from that. That is, I can work backwards in an infinite but ordered set and never ever reach a 'first' value. For example, I could start with all the integers, then with that infinite set of values, create a set of pairs from that set (say (n,n-1) foreach n a member of I) and then create another infinite set from that infinte set of pairs that is the average of each of the two paired values*2. But that set would be just as large (have the same cardinality) as the first set, even though two values from the first set are required to produce each single value of the second. There is a sense of reduction (2 values in A become only 1 value in B), but no migration to a 'smaller' or 'first' such set. Each set is in fact the same as its predecessor.
I'm speaking as a layman here, just total speculation. Others with a more objective grasp of the mathematics and theory would need to jump in and put legs on the idea if they exist.
JimLast edited by oxmixmudd; 11-16-2017, 12:03 PM.My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26
This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19
Comment
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostI don't think these are valid consequences. If the multiverse itself is of a sort that can have infinite past, it could be spawning universes that are themselves not of this sort, that is that have beginnings. That is, there might be an infinitude of dead universes out there spawned from the multiverse, each in turn which might have spawned other universes which have a begining, do not have an infinite past, and for which some infinitessimally small subset of which have not yet reached heat death (our own being one). I'd be curious to know if a timeless universe could spawn other universes (spawn being a verb => time). So it may be required that the multiverse 'egg' be a non-expanding universe of infinite past but with a time dimension and perhaps itself be a universe without entropy (which may be what it means not to expand). I'd also wonder if universes can exist where there is no entropy, no expansion, and/or no time.
I'd also wonder if the "can't have inifinte past" takes into account an infinitude of infinitely large universes which themselves spawn an infinitude of child universes. Seems the concepts proposed are necessarily presuming a finite set of universes and/or some finite extent to those universes at some epoch N and then working backwards from that. That is, I can work backwards in an infinite but ordered set and never ever reach a 'first' value. For example, I could start with all the integers, then with that infinite set of values, create a set of pairs from that set (say (n,n-1) foreach n a member of I) and then create another infinite set from that infinte set of pairs that is the average of each of the two paired values*2. But that set would be just as large (have the same cardinality) as the first set, even though two values from the first set are required to produce each single value of the second. There is a sense of reduction (2 values in A become only 1 value in B), but no migration to a 'smaller' or 'first' such set. Each set is in fact the same as its predecessor.
I'm speaking as a layman here, just total speculation. Others with a more objective grasp of the mathematics and theory would need to jump in and put legs on the idea if they exist.
Jim
Comment
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostI don't think these are valid consequences. If the multiverse itself is of a sort that can have infinite past, it could be spawning universes that are themselves not of this sort, that is that have beginnings. That is, there might be an infinitude of dead universes out there spawned from the multiverse, each in turn which might have spawned other universes which have a begining, do not have an infinite past, and for which some infinitessimally small subset of which have not yet reached heat death (our own being one). I'd be curious to know if a timeless universe could spawn other universes (spawn being a verb => time). So it may be required that the multiverse 'egg' be a non-expanding universe of infinite past but with a time dimension and perhaps itself be a universe without entropy (which may be what it means not to expand). I'd also wonder if universes can exist where there is no entropy, no expansion, and/or no time.
I'd also wonder if the "can't have inifinte past" takes into account an infinitude of infinitely large universes which themselves spawn an infinitude of child universes. Seems the concepts proposed are necessarily presuming a finite set of universes and/or some finite extent to those universes at some epoch N and then working backwards from that. That is, I can work backwards in an infinite but ordered set and never ever reach a 'first' value. For example, I could start with all the integers, then with that infinite set of values, create a set of pairs from that set (say (n,n-1) foreach n a member of I) and then create another infinite set from that infinte set of pairs that is the average of each of the two paired values*2. But that set would be just as large (have the same cardinality) as the first set, even though two values from the first set are required to produce each single value of the second. There is a sense of reduction (2 values in A become only 1 value in B), but no migration to a 'smaller' or 'first' such set. Each set is in fact the same as its predecessor.
I'm speaking as a layman here, just total speculation. Others with a more objective grasp of the mathematics and theory would need to jump in and put legs on the idea if they exist.
Jim
JimMy brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26
This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostLike why hasn't everything decayed into an entropy state?
Of course, you then get into the issue of it being the ground state for an inflationary fabric, but not for the non-inflationary universes that are spawned from it. And at this point, the physics goes way above my pay grade, and i don't understand how thermodynamics applies.
As for the rest of your post, i think you were treating "universe" as meaning 3 things:
Our universe.
Another universe like ours spawned from the inflationary fabric.
The inflationary fabric itself.
As such, i had a hard time figuring out what you were arguing."Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View Postsame problems. if the multiverse is infinite in time or space then you have 100% chance that it never spawned any universes and that it spawned an infinite number. Both are true. That it spawned an infinite number of universes that are identical to our own and an infinite number of universes that are similar to our own and an infinite number that are nothing like ours.
Infinite sets have a property called density. The rationals have an infinitude of holes between them which are filled by the reals. There is nothing about an infinite set of universes spawning another infinitude of universe in an infinite space over infinite time that requires they be crowded or full, or that an infinitude of them them could be active 'now' while another infinitude of them are dead, having long ago reached heat death. In fact the number of dead universes could be infintely more than the number of live ones, and there could still be an infinitude of live ones. Each Universe could in fact be creating matter infinitely and depending on the expansion rate, it could be getting more dense, getting less dense, or staying the same density. Infinities are weird. One can't reason well about them using concepts that apply to finite sets.
JimLast edited by oxmixmudd; 11-16-2017, 12:49 PM.My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26
This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19
Comment
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostIncidentally, I don't see any conflict between an eternal multiverse and scripture description of God creating the world. At some point we need to understand the 'beginning' of Genesis is the beginning of our world, at most perhaps our universe. Our universe began, and it began in a way that is not at all out of sorts with what scripture describes. So even if the story could be fully reconciled scientifically to that reality, it says nothing about the temporal nature of what lies outside that (e.g. heaven, hell etc).
Jim
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by shunyadragon, 05-28-2024, 01:19 PM
|
18 responses
96 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
05-30-2024, 05:13 PM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 05-03-2024, 02:47 PM
|
3 responses
35 views
1 like
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
05-07-2024, 08:07 PM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 05-03-2024, 12:33 PM
|
9 responses
90 views
2 likes
|
Last Post 05-27-2024, 05:48 AM |
Comment