An Infinite Past?

[shunyadragon]

How energy emitted from a star is used depends on what it encounters. On earth, energy emitted from the sun can be used for photosynthesis, among other things. That's the example I gave in my last post. Yes, that energy does become dissipated as it moves from places of higher energy to places of lower energy. It's hypothesized that the universe could reach a state of complete equilibrium, and that's what is referred to as heat death. Temperature becomes homogeneous. Without temperature differences, heat as a process ceases to function. Even then, energy hasn't ceased to exist. Rather, it's in a state of uniform distribution.

That said, there's no real indication to my knowledge that this hypothesis is correct. It follows from the 2nd Law as a possible outcome, but that's about it. There are alternative endings to this universe, and afaik we don't possess the necessary information to select between them properly. For example, cold death happens when the universe spreads out so much that energy and temperature levels are too low to sustain life (or any other process). It's conceivable that the universe could expand indefinitely until gravity ceases to hold things together, giving rise to the Big Rip. Still others think that eventually gravity will win the day and collapse the universe via the Big Crunch. Our understanding of factors like dark energy and dark matter (if they even exist) is much too poor to speculate on how the universe will end. If it does.

The ending state of heat death would be the Quantum ground state or zero-point. The energy in this state is potential energy, and not useless.

The crunch will not be likely as a cyclic universe, but the formation of a singularity elsewhere. At present the cyclic universe is not considered viable.

[seer]

It's not unimaginable, but it brings us back to my original reply. Premise one is incomplete, since time alone is insufficient to establish that all possibilities will be made actual. Premise two you already recognize as flawed, since what is or is not possible is unknown. Even if premise one were granted, it's too premature to grant premise two. We just don't know enough yet.

As far as premise one is concerned - given an infinite past what would prevent all possibilities from becoming actual? As far as premise two, I think at this point we can agree that it may be possible.

[JimL]

Scientists believing something if they don't have reasons for it isn't evidence. However we do have clear and incontrovertible evidence that the world undergoes change, our experience.

They do have reasons, its debatable. And our physical experiences, like the flow of time itself, could be an illusion.

Yes.



He didn't undergo changes. That follows as a corrolary to the argument I gave you. If he could undergo changes, then he would exhibit both potentiality and actuality, and then God would need an ultimate cause for his existence. If the ultimate cause can't be the ultimate cause, then we have a contradiction. So its false that the ultimate cause can undergo change.

And my point was that the act of creating itself would be an exibition of change, ergo potentiality. I know your argument is that a potential in a thing can't be brought about, or caused by the thing itself but must be caused by another thing. So why then do you define God as pure actuality since he is the cause of his creative acts?? I know, he doesn't change. We could just as well argue that the eternal universe has both actuality and potentiality and that it, like God, is the cause of its own creative acts.

And if something isn't physically extended, and you can't assign locality to it at all, but it can and does interact with everything, what one word would you use to describe it?

Nonsense. But perhaps I am wrong and you have an explanation for this assertion?

To be in act everywhere.

Yes, and how in act everywhere when you are nowhere?

Is it okay if I'm asking you whether you're making a distinction with a difference. It seems we're only arguing about what you'd permit the words 'infinite' and 'omnipresent' to mean. You do know what we believe though, that God has access to all parts of the world, and there's no where without his influence, and that it requires his constant activity to maintain everything in existence. You're not objecting to this, just the terms used to describe it.

Well I am objecting to it because, though you believe it, you give no explanation for it. You give no reason for anyone to believe that God is everywhere active even though he is nowhere.

Lets accept the definitions of the words and move on.

Infinite has many different definitions apparently, but I don't think that zero extension is one of them, even if the thing extended is immaterial or spirit.

Are you asking for his spatio-temporal coordinates?

How ever you want to define it. Does God exist somewhere? If so, where does he exist?

You'll have to explain that one. No matter how slow or fast time passes, it still passes, and if God can observe that passage of time then he to would need be of time. Same for his thought process and creative acts. Are all of his thoughts and creative acts fixed and eternal because if they are then he is not really thinking or creating at all? If they are then how do they objectify themselves at different times? For example, if our universe comes to an end and God creates another universe in its stead, did the former universe and the act of its creation take place at a "time" before the existence and act of creation of the latter universe?

You seem to have missed the above question Leonard. I think it an important question and would appreciate hearing your response to it.

Why can't he just have them all timelessly in one single coherent vision?

Because then it wouldn't really be a mind would it? God wouldn't be thinking at all, to think requires a will and Gods mind, if you want to call it that, according to your timeless definition, would be eternally fixed and unwilled.

I don't understand what you're saying here, but I don't think we are making progress. Wanna move on to something else, we've opened enough topics to discuss and this is turning into a mess of one-liners.

I don't know why you don't understand, it was your own analogy. All I did was position you in the center of the clock in place of God to show the flaw in your analogy.

I'm afraid you're making the fallacy of false dichotomy. Christians hold to neither, one is the gnostic heresy the other is nestorianism. Both have been soundly condemned. Christ wasn't a spirit controlled meat puppet, and he wasn't a human being who was adopted by God. You have to argue against what's actually believed, otherwise you're ultimately arguing against a strawman. And I don't have to defend that the strawman is wrong, its sufficient for me to point out that you're not answering what Christians believe and teach.

Well, you are telling me what he wasn't, but you are not telling me what he was. Can you explain in what sense Jesus was both fully human and fully God?

I think you're simple rejecting that you can make a logical ordering of causes. However if you use this as an argument that God needs time in order to cause the universe (i.e he has to exist temporally prior to the universe), then you're begging the question. You're assuming that God needs time in order to be a cause, rather than simple being logically prior to the creation of the universe. I've given you some examples of effects that exist simultaneously with their causes. Arguing that the hand existed prior than the ball is a non sequitor, because if the ball fails to fall to the floor is the effect, then the hand holding up the ball is a simultaneous cause.

And I believe that I debunked your examples. An effect cannot exist simultaneous to its cause if the cause existed for eternity and the effect came into existence yesterday. I don't think that your response to that answers the question I asked. If the created ball goes out of existence say, and the hand, or God, creates another ball in its stead, did the act of creating the first ball occur at a time prior to the act of creating the second ball?

I can't argue against opinion, but if you've got an argument I'm game.

My opinion is based upon what I see. Now of course there may be more to it than what I see, but simple assertions of creation out of nothing is not very convincing.

God is the ultimate cause of everything he does, they have their origin in his will.

Can you explain in what sense freewill can fit together with an unchanging eternal and therefore fixed mind?

[Tassman]

Tass, Guth and Vilenkin have not changed their minds. Look at your quote: Most inflationary models, almost all, predict that inflation should become eternal - yes they believe the multiverse could be eternal going forward - their work does not point to an eternal past. Vilenkin made that clear in my link,

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...l#.U1IHgFWSwWc

An is being posited as eternal is the quantum field state of the greater cosmos, which is the medium whereby singularities emerge and from which each universe inflates. The argument is that if this can happen once there is no reason why it wouldn't happen continuously.

and you keep ignoring one of the conclusions in one of your own links: And for some theorists, simply proving that inflation happened at all would be a sign of the multiverse.... For now, physicists don't know how they might observe the multiverse and confirm that it exists

What it says is that:



AND:



http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...ational-waves/

There are no proofs in science but momentum is building towards the multiverse model for the reasons stated.

So Tass, even with a multiverse, there is zero evidence for an infinite past. And even if they can confirm inflation that does not confirm a multiverse. Never mind the age old problem of infinite regression.

Nonsense Shuny. Are you saying that there are effects without a cause? I'm asking YOU, how do YOU escape an infinite chain? For instance, something in the multiverse cause this universe, but what caused that cause, and so on, and so on?

An "infinite chain" in an infinite, open, greater cosmos is a nonsensical irrelevancy. Anyway, you couldn't escape such a chain by positing God as the first cause. What caused God? Unless you address this question you are indulging in unwarranted special pleading and your argument, by being based on a logical fallacy, can be dismissed.

[seer]

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...l#.U1IHgFWSwWc

An is being posited as eternal is the quantum field state of the greater cosmos, which is the medium whereby singularities emerge and from which each universe inflates. The argument is that if this can happen once there is no reason why it wouldn't happen continuously.

Tass even with "eternal inflation" (eternal going forward) that can produce the multiverse you need a BEGINNING. It is not eternal or infinite into the past. And Alexander Vilenkin had no problem speaking of an eternal past (as my link showed) - so why should you. Put simply - the multiverse needs a beginning according to Guth and Vilenkin, there is zero evidence that matter and energy are eternal.

There are no proofs in science but momentum is building towards the multiverse model for the reasons stated.

But what created the multiverse?



With God Tass, one does not have to move through a infinite number of past physical events to get to a specific point. No matter how you hand wave you can not escape this problem.

[shunyadragon]

Tass even with "eternal inflation" (eternal going forward) that can produce the multiverse you need a BEGINNING. It is not eternal or infinite into the past. And Alexander Vilenkin had no problem speaking of an eternal past (as my link showed) - so why should you. Put simply - the multiverse needs a beginning according to Guth and Vilenkin, there is zero evidence that matter and energy are eternal.

False Guth and Vilenkin come to no such conclusion of the above highlighted. You are misrepresenting scientists and selectively referencing their research which you do not support.

But what created the multiverse?

According to my religious belief, God. According to science, it is not a question that can be answered nor determined either way.

With God Tass, one does not have to move through a infinite number of past physical events to get to a specific point. No matter how you hand wave you can not escape this problem.

We are not proposing the problem of physical events concerning Gods, but the problem of spiritual 'eternal past' problem in terms of your view, of Infinite Regress of many Gods. No matter how you hand wave you can not escape this problem

[seer]

False Guth and Vilenkin come to no such conclusion of the above highlighted. You are misrepresenting scientists and selectively referencing their research which you do not support.

Fudging the truth again Shuny?

Eternal inflation is essentially an expansion of Guth's idea, and says that the universe grows at this breakneck pace forever, by constantly giving birth to smaller "bubble" universes within an ever-expanding multiverse, each of which goes through its own initial period of inflation. Crucially, some versions of eternal inflation applied to time as well as space, with the bubbles forming both backward sand forwards in time (see diagram).But in 2003, a team including Vilenkin and Guth considered what eternal inflation would mean for the Hubble constant, which describes mathematically the expansion of the universe. They found that thee quations didn't work ( Physical Review Letters , DOI: 10.1103/physrevlett.90.151301). "You can't construct a space-time with this property," says Vilenkin. It turns out that the constant has a lower limit that prevents inflation in both time directions. "It can't possibly be eternal in the past," says Vilenkin."There must be some kind of boundary."

http://www.scribd.com/doc/77980709/W...Creation-Event

And you can watch Vilenkin give the talk here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXCQelhKJ7A

We are not proposing the problem of physical events concerning Gods, but the problem of spiritual 'eternal past' problem in terms of your view, of Infinite Regress of many Gods. No matter how you hand wave you can not escape this problem

More fudging. An eternal God, who is not physical, who does not change, and is singular, does not fall prey to infinite regression. Which is an infinite series of past physical events that lead to the present. Now go wave your hands some place else.

[shunyadragon]

Fudging the truth again Shuny?

http://www.scribd.com/doc/77980709/W...Creation-Event

And you can watch Vilenkin give the talk here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXCQelhKJ7A

Your fudging seer. All these references refer ONLY to possible time/space universes. Nothing here refers to the greater cosmos that contains the possible universes. Again you're misrepresenting scientists whose research and results you do not accept. Please make specific quotes not related to birth and expansion and death of possible universes. The event described here is the beginning of a universe from a singularity. Still waiting . . .

More fudging. An eternal God, who is not physical, who does not change, and is singular, does not fall prey to infinite regression. Which is an infinite series of past physical events that lead to the present. Now go wave your hands some place else.

More fudging, your dodging the problem. Spiritually any claims of for God likewise faces the Infinite Regression of many Gods. Actually as described in the book Infinity and Mind Infinite Regression has no relevance to whether any thing is infinite, because Infinite Regression would occurs ONLY within TIME, and time is necessary for any chain of events. Time/Space of possible universes does not exist in the greater cosmos.

[JonathanL]

Your fudging seer. All these references refer ONLY to possible time/space universes. Nothing here refers to the greater cosmos that contains the possible universes. Again you're misrepresenting scientists whose research and results you do not accept. Please make specific quotes not related to birth and expansion and death of possible universes. The event described here is the beginning of a universe from a singularity. Still waiting . . .

Maybe you need a reminder of this thread of yours, where it was shown that you had absolutely no clue when it comes to what Guth and Vilenkin believes their theorem implies and where you wrongly accused WLC of misrepresenting Guth and Vilenkin just as you're now accusing Seer?

[JimL]

With God Tass, one does not have to move through a infinite number of past physical events to get to a specific point. No matter how you hand wave you can not escape this problem.

It is no different with an eternal God than it would be for an eternal universe, unless you believe that the creation of the universe is the only act God ever did. The act of creation itself is an event that takes place in time even if for that universe time begins with its creation. If God should act again, then the action would necessarily come temporally after his first action. If the object of his actions come to be in time, then his actions themselves must needs be in time.

[seer]

Your fudging seer. All these references refer ONLY to possible time/space universes. Nothing here refers to the greater cosmos that contains the possible universes. Again you're misrepresenting scientists whose research and results you do not accept. Please make specific quotes not related to birth and expansion and death of possible universes. The event described here is the beginning of a universe from a singularity. Still waiting . . .

That is a complete lie Shuny. The inflation theory that Vilenkin is speaking of in my link and in the talk on You Tube is THE MULTIVERSE theory. You are a dishonest man Shuny.

Eternal inflation is essentially an expansion of Guth's idea, and says that the universe grows at this breakneck pace forever, by constantly giving birth to smaller "bubble" universes within an ever-expanding multiverse, each of which goes through its own initial period of inflation. Crucially, some versions of eternal inflation applied to time as well as space, with the bubbles forming both backward sand forwards in time (see diagram).But in 2003, a team including Vilenkin and Guth considered what eternal inflation would mean for the Hubble constant, which describes mathematically the expansion of the universe. They found that thee quations didn't work ( Physical Review Letters , DOI: 10.1103/physrevlett.90.151301). "You can't construct a space-time with this property," says Vilenkin. It turns out that the constant has a lower limit that prevents inflation in both time directions. "It can't possibly be eternal in the past," says Vilenkin."There must be some kind of boundary."

More fudging, your dodging the problem. Spiritually any claims of for God likewise faces the Infinite Regression of many Gods. Actually as described in the book Infinity and Mind Infinite Regression has no relevance to whether any thing is infinite, because Infinite Regression would occurs ONLY within TIME, and time is necessary for any chain of events. Time/Space of possible universes does not exist in the greater cosmos.

But I don't suppose many gods you idiot! And what makes you think that time does not exist in your greater cosmos - can you prove that? Besides time plays no role in the problem of infinite regression I presented.

[seer]

It is no different with an eternal God than it would be for an eternal universe, unless you believe that the creation of the universe is the only act God ever did. The act of creation itself is an event that takes place in time even if for that universe time begins with its creation. If God should act again, then the action would necessarily come temporally after his first action. If the object of his actions come to be in time, then his actions themselves must needs be in time.

No Jim, God acting once or twice or ten times does not bring in the problem if infinite regression. The physical problem of moving through an infinite number of past events to get to this present universe. It is irrational.

[seer]

Maybe you need a reminder of this thread of yours, where it was shown that you had absolutely no clue when it comes to what Guth and Vilenkin believes their theorem implies and where you wrongly accused WLC of misrepresenting Guth and Vilenkin just as you're now accusing Seer?

Shuny is one of the most deeply deceptive men I have ever debated on the Web. Sad...

[Juvenal]

If I have this right, the argument goes something like this:

1. If there is an infinite past there is enough time for all possibilities to be made actual.

<snip>

Thoughts?

Hello seer,

My apologies for not reading through the rest of your thread, but I thought I'd unwind this one, as it includes a common misconception about infinity. Basically, the issue is that "infinite" is not "all."

There are an infinite number of whole numbers. None of them is a fraction.

There are an infinite number of fractions. None of them is √2.

There are an infinite number of algebraic numbers (expressible using √'s of fractions). None of them is pi.

Hence, with respect to your first premise, an infinite amount of time does not necessarily include enough time for all possibilities to be made actual.

As ever, Jesse

[seer]

Hence, with respect to your first premise, an infinite amount of time does not necessarily include enough time for all possibilities to be made actual.

As ever, Jesse

Since we are speaking of actual physical possibilities, I'm not sure what your point is. Or how any physical possibility could be prevented. And your examples don't make sense - it would be impossible for a whole number to be both a whole number and a fraction.