Problems and Questions in Atheism

[JimL]

Well, no. We just don't really know what happens at the event horizon. Our models simply fail to describe it. That certainly doesn't imply that "physical laws become useless." It only means that we don't understand the physics of that particular phenomenon.

Right, which until and unless we can understand, then they are useless, no?

No, it doesn't. That isn't even a cogent concept. First of all, the visible universe has a radius of between 13 and 14 billion light years. That does not imply that there is nothing more to the universe beyond that which can be seen. Furthermore, even if there is a finite spatial boundary, that doesn't imply that there must exist something beyond that boundary-- if that were the case, it wouldn't actually be a spatial boundary in the first place, but rather just some sort of barrier within space.

Yes, but thats a semantical argument. Whether there is a boundary to this universe, or whether our observation can't reach beyond a certain point, there being absolutey nothing beyond that point, beyond that which can be seen, makes no sense to me, because nothingness itself makes no sense. What is the universe expanding into, if there is nothing to expand into? If you argue that a void is nothing, then the universe exists within the void and its existence is dependent upon the existence of that void. Without the house, that which would otherwise exist in the house, can't exist, unless of course the house and that which is in the house are one and the same thing.

It makes perfect sense to me.

Then explain or define what you mean by "nothing." If the universe is infinite, then there is no such thing as nothing, but if it is finite, then how do you define this nothingness into which the universe is expanding?

You do realize that this brings up an infinite recursion, right? Everything is born, therefore our universe must have been born inside some sort of Greater Cosmos. But everything is born, therefore the Greater Cosmos must have been born inside some Greater Greater Cosmos. But everything is born, therefore the Greater Greater Cosmos must have been born inside a Greater Greater Greater Cosmos. And so on, ad infinitum.

Either you have to admit that there may be something which exists without having been "born" or you are forced to claim that our universe exists within an infinite panoply of shell universes like some sort of unending series of Matryoshka dolls. If the former, then one is forced to ask why you think our universe cannot be that which exists without having been born. If the latter, then you are forced to defend a completely ad hoc and speculative hypothesis with absolutely no basis in either physical evidence or mathematical models.

No, if those things which are finite and temporal are naught but the changing forms within an infinite and eternal whole, then the infinite and eternal whole to which the finite forms belong, needn't be born.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Right, which until and unless we can understand, then they are useless, no?

No. The fact that we don't yet have a full understanding of the physics of black holes does not imply that physics is therefore entirely useless in describing black holes. There is still quite a bit which we do understand about the physics of black holes, and this allows us to make predictions and formulate models in exactly the same way as in any other area of physics. It's not as if physics simply ceases to have any meaning, at all, when describing the event horizon of a black hole.

Yes, but thats a semantical argument.

Well, yeah, it is a semantic argument. You don't quite seem to understand the concept of finite space, so until we have a clear definition of that notion, it becomes impossible to have a productive discussion. It'd be like I was saying, "Apples are delicious," while you reply, "that's not true, because I don't like the taste of oranges." We'll get nowhere if we are talking about two completely different things.

Whether there is a boundary to this universe, or whether our observation can't reach beyond a certain point, there being absolutey nothing beyond that point

That's just silly. If someone is in a room with no windows, with absolutely no way to observe anything outside of that room, does that mean nothing else exists beyond the room? The fact that we cannot see anything else does not imply that nothing else is there. It's entirely possible that there exists more to our particular spacetime beyond that which we can observe.

...nothingness itself makes no sense. What is the universe expanding into, if there is nothing to expand into? If you argue that a void is nothing, then the universe exists within the void and its existence is dependent upon the existence of that void.

...Then explain or define what you mean by "nothing." If the universe is infinite, then there is no such thing as nothing, but if it is finite, then how do you define this nothingness into which the universe is expanding?

The universe is not expanding into anything. The phrase "the universe is expanding" is a reference to the geometry of spacetime. Even if the universe is spatially infinite, it is still expanding. Nobody is claiming that the universe is sitting within some real and extant state of "nothingness." That would be quite clearly incoherent.

If I were to ask you, "What is north of the North Pole?" and you replied, "There is nothing north of the North Pole," should I take that to mean that there exists some real and extant state of "nothingness" which is situated to the north of the North Pole? Of course not. Rather, the phrase "there is nothing north of the North Pole" simply means that there does not exist any point which is north of the North Pole. If you are standing at the North Pole, and you take one big step in any direction, you are heading directly south.

Similarly, if I were to say, "there is nothing beyond a finite boundary," I'm not saying that there exists some real and extant state of nothingness beyond that boundary. I'm saying that the phrase "beyond that boundary" is not even coherent.

Without the house, that which would otherwise exist in the house, can't exist, unless of course the house and that which is in the house are one and the same thing.

This doesn't make a lick of sense. Couches and televisions and tables can't exist in the absence of a house?

No, if those things which are finite and temporal are naught but the changing forms within an infinite and eternal whole, then the infinite and eternal whole to which the finite forms belong, needn't be born.

So, then, you are admitting that there may be something which exists without having been "born," which was the first of my two options. Why are you saying, "No," as if you disagreed with me?

[37818]

The steady state theory was a view that the universe had an infinite past. It was the evidence of the expanding universe which does not allow an infinite past.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

The steady state theory was a view that the universe had an infinite past. It was the evidence of the expanding universe which does not allow an infinite past.

You don't seem to understand the steady state theory.

Steady state theory was the idea that the universe has an immutable structure underlying it such that changes might occur in extremely tiny localities of the universe, but that these localities were negligible in the grand view. An implication of this view was that the universe must be past-infinite, otherwise that would imply that the universe, as whole, underwent change. It is not the case that every past-infinite model of the universe is this antiquated steady state theory.

Hubble's discovery of the motion of galaxies disconfirmed this view because it showed that space is expanding, not because it showed evidence of a finite past. If space, itself, is expanding, then we must conclude that the universe is not an immutable monolithic structure, as was held by the steady state model. None of this implies that past must be finite.

Later, Georges Lemaitre used Hubble's data to create a mathematical model which he called the "Cosmic Egg." By extrapolating beyond the available data, Lemaitre created a model in which time could be past-finite.

Once again, the only support for the idea that the universe is past-finite is mathematical modeling, just as the only support for the idea that the universe is past-infinite is mathematical modeling.

[37818]

The steady state theory was a view that the universe had an infinite past. It was the evidence of the expanding universe which does not allow an infinite past.

You don't seem to understand the steady state theory.

Steady state theory was the idea that the universe has an immutable structure underlying it such that changes might occur in extremely tiny localities of the universe, but that these localities were negligible in the grand view. An implication of this view was that the universe must be past-infinite, otherwise that would imply that the universe, as whole, underwent change. It is not the case that every past-infinite model of the universe is this antiquated steady state theory.

Hubble's discovery of the motion of galaxies . . .
<snip>

Definition of steady state theory

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Definition of steady state theory

That's the modernized steady state theory, as opposed to the one which was disconfirmed by Hubble's expansion discovery. This version does not stand at odds with the expansion of the universe, so you were still wrong in your previous claim that:

The steady state theory was a view that the universe had an infinite past. It was the evidence of the expanding universe which does not allow an infinite past.

[shunyadragon]

The steady state theory was a view that the universe had an infinite past. It was the evidence of the expanding universe which does not allow an infinite past.

Incorrect, the steady state theory nor expanding universe disallow either an infinite or finite universe.

[psstein]

When you talk about steady state theory, you have to contrast between what Hoyle argued in reaction to the Big Bang theory and the theory that existed prior to Lemaitre/Gamow/etc.

[37818]

The steady state theory of 1948, that the universe was without a beginning came to its end in 1965.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

The steady state theory of 1948, that the universe was without a beginning came to its end in 1965.

Lovely. What does that have to do with modern models with a past-infinite dimension of time?

[JimL]

No. The fact that we don't yet have a full understanding of the physics of black holes does not imply that physics is therefore entirely useless in describing black holes. There is still quite a bit which we do understand about the physics of black holes, and this allows us to make predictions and formulate models in exactly the same way as in any other area of physics. It's not as if physics simply ceases to have any meaning, at all, when describing the event horizon of a black hole.

Yes I understand that we you understand the physics of black holes, but we weren't talking about black holes per se, we were talking about the resulting so called singularity at its center, or the point at which we can no longer understand the physics.

Well, yeah, it is a semantic argument. You don't quite seem to understand the concept of finite space, so until we have a clear definition of that notion, it becomes impossible to have a productive discussion. It'd be like I was saying, "Apples are delicious," while you reply, "that's not true, because I don't like the taste of oranges." We'll get nowhere if we are talking about two completely different things.

Perhaps you are correct, it seems like fairly simple concept to me, but not being as learned in the subject as you are, perhaps I'm misunderstanding what is meant by finite. To me "finite" means limited in extent, as opposed to infinite, which means to be unlimited. So if our universe is all there is, and though continuing to expand, has a radius of 14 billion light years, then prima facie, it is limited in extent, or finite, no? If on the other hand there is no such thing as nothing then there is no such thing as non existence and the universe, or the greater cosmos, is unlimited, or infinite. And with that in mind, if our universe is a finite part of a greater infinite Cosmos then its expansion is taking place within the whole, like an expanding bubble in a glass of water.

That's just silly. If someone is in a room with no windows, with absolutely no way to observe anything outside of that room, does that mean nothing else exists beyond the room? The fact that we cannot see anything else does not imply that nothing else is there. It's entirely possible that there exists more to our particular spacetime beyond that which we can observe.

Yes, thats my contention. You must have misunderstood. What I said was that the notion of "nothingness" makes no sense to me.

The universe is not expanding into anything.

Well, our particular universe is either expanding into something, or our particular universe is a part of a greater Cosmos, in which case it is expanding within itself. Like the water bubble within the larger body of water.

The phrase "the universe is expanding" is a reference to the geometry of spacetime. Even if the universe is spatially infinite, it is still expanding. Nobody is claiming that the universe is sitting within some real and extant state of "nothingness." That would be quite clearly incoherent.

But don't you believe in the B-theory of time in which the universe is static, i.e. not actually expanding? And wouldn't that universe be finite in extent? If so isn't it true that the universe is just sitting there in its finitude?

If I were to ask you, "What is north of the North Pole?" and you replied, "There is nothing north of the North Pole," should I take that to mean that there exists some real and extant state of "nothingness" which is situated to the north of the North Pole? Of course not. Rather, the phrase "there is nothing north of the North Pole" simply means that there does not exist any point which is north of the North Pole. If you are standing at the North Pole, and you take one big step in any direction, you are heading directly south.

But north and south, like up and down, have no real meaning with respect to an infinite universe. But if the universe is finite then the question makes sense, i.e. is there something outside of its boundary, or is it a state of nothingness, whatever that could mean?

Similarly, if I were to say, "there is nothing beyond a finite boundary," I'm not saying that there exists some real and extant state of nothingness beyond that boundary. I'm saying that the phrase "beyond that boundary" is not even coherent.

Why is it incoherent? There is something beyond the finite boundary of the bubble within the greater body of water, no?

This doesn't make a lick of sense. Couches and televisions and tables can't exist in the absence of a house?

The house analogy is my example of the universe. If there is no universe then that which would otherwise exist within it, could not exist.

So, then, you are admitting that there may be something which exists without having been "born," which was the first of my two options. Why are you saying, "No," as if you disagreed with me?

I have no idea where I denied that, my whole argument is based upon it. Yes, the infinite and eternal universe was not born. That why I said that the finite and temporal things are finite and temporal with respect to themselves, but they are infinite and eternal with respect to their cause, or in other words with respect to that to which they belong.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Yes I understand that we you understand the physics of black holes, but we weren't talking about black holes per se, we were talking about the resulting so called singularity at its center, or the point at which we can no longer understand the physics.

Again, you're not quite grasping the situation. It's not as if all of physics suddenly ceases to have any meaning at the event horizon of a black hole. It's simply that some particular aspects of black hole physics are not understood. This isn't an all-or-nothing scenario. There remain aspects of physics which apply perfectly well within the event horizon.

As I've said, a singularity is a mathematical term. It's not a physical object.

Perhaps you are correct, it seems like fairly simple concept to me, but not being as learned in the subject as you are, perhaps I'm misunderstanding what is meant by finite. To me "finite" means limited in extent, as opposed to infinite, which means to be unlimited. So if our [observable] universe is all there is, and though continuing to expand, has a radius of 14 billion light years, then prima facie, it is limited in extent, or finite, no?

Yes, if there is a finite boundary to space, then there is a finite boundary to space. That seems fairly tautological.

If on the other hand there is no such thing as nothing then there is no such thing as non existence and the universe, or the greater cosmos, is unlimited, or infinite.

This doesn't follow, in the slightest. Again, there is nothing which is north of the North Pole. This does not imply that there must actually be something which is north of the North Pole, and that this something is infinite in expanse.

Well, our particular universe is either expanding into something, or our particular universe is a part of a greater Cosmos, in which case it is expanding within itself. Like the water bubble within the larger body of water.

I would be tempted to call attention to the false dichotomy, here, except that it isn't even a dichotomy. You're saying that either the universe is expanding into something or else it is expanding into something. Again, it is not the case that the universe is expanding into something. It is unnecessary to posit the existence of some sort of super-space in which to situate space-time.

But don't you believe in the B-theory of time in which the universe is static, i.e. not actually expanding? And wouldn't that universe be finite in extent? If so isn't it true that the universe is just sitting there in its finitude?

I'm not going to spend yet another thread trying to rehash the same discussions of the B-Theory. For now, I'll simply say that the fact that all moments of time are coextant on the B-Theory does not imply that all states at those moments are equal.

But north and south, like up and down, have no real meaning with respect to an infinite universe. But if the universe is finite then the question makes sense, i.e. is there something outside of its boundary, or is it a state of nothingness, whatever that could mean?

Why is it incoherent? There is something beyond the finite boundary of the bubble within the greater body of water, no?

It is incoherent because you are attempting to say that space ends and that it doesn't end at the same time. The word "outside" is a spatial descriptor. It is meaningless in the absence of space. If space is finite, that means that there is a boundary. Not a wall or a partition or a blockade. It means that space ends. There is no "outside," as that would imply the existence of space after the end of space, which is self-contradictory and nonsensical.

I have no idea where I denied that, my whole argument is based upon it.

I said, "Either you have to admit that there may be something which exists without having been 'born' or you are forced to claim that our universe exists within an infinite panoply of shell universes like some sort of unending series of Matryoshka dolls." The first word of your reply to that statement was, "No," after which you described something which exists without having been born. This is why I was confused.

Yes, the infinite and eternal universe was not born. That why I said that the finite and temporal things are finite and temporal with respect to themselves, but they are infinite and eternal with respect to their cause, or in other words with respect to that to which they belong.

So then why do you think spacetime has a cause or "belongs" to anything?

[37818]

Lovely. What does that have to do with modern models with a past-infinite dimension of time?

How are you understanding "a past-infinite dimension of time?"

[shunyadragon]

The steady state theory of 1948, that the universe was without a beginning came to its end in 1965.

No, it has not been determined whether the universe had a beginning or not regardless of which scientific model or hypothesis you propose.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

How are you understanding "a past-infinite dimension of time?"

Models in which the dimension of time has no earliest moment.