An Infinite Past?

[Jedidiah]

Whatever happened before the few moments of the Planck epoch is unknown - Planck time is the earliest moment in the history of the universe where our physics still works. So, given we know that the expansion of the universe could only have begun began in the Planck epoch, it is reasonable to argue that the expanding universe does not take us back to the very moment of a beginning of this universe. Or even if there was a beginning rather than an infinite, eternal quantum vacuum out of which our particular Universe was born of a quantum fluctuation.

Okay so you admit that you have no evidence. All you can say is we do not know. When you stick in your probability it is just an unsubstantiated personal opinion.

[Jedidiah]

Ok Shuny, if an expanding universe is not evidence for a finite universe then what is it evidence of? What are these other possibilities? The point is, it is evidence for a beginning, even if it is not conclusive. So where is such physical evidence for your multiverse?

Shuny is correct, seer. There is no direct physical evidence of the actual beginning. This of course does not mean that there is not such a beginning. It is just a detail that many try to use to put off such a beginning. The beginning of existence at the "Big Ban" is just as likely as is the desire to see it as not a beginning. Pure personal preference.

[Jedidiah]

The evidence for the multiverse has been repeatedly presented from many sources in past threads, and it will not at presently satisfy your demands for Newtonian 'physical evidence. This how science looks at our universe, note highlighted.

None of this is evidence. Science is not a voting matter. The bottom line is we can not tell (at least not yet) scientifically.

[shunyadragon]

None of this is evidence. Science is not a voting matter. The bottom line is we can not tell (at least not yet) scientifically.

I have never discussed here specifically 'What is evidence?'. nor do I remotely consider Science a voting matter????

Well, this is vague, and without explanation as to what is evidence. seer demands Newtonian 'physical evidence.' What is your criteria for 'scientific evidence?'

The bottom line again, there are many possible models and proposed theorems for our universe, all possible universes, and multiverses, but no there is no direct 'physical evidence' as to whether our universe has a definite beginning nor ending, nor 'direct physical evidence' that the possible multiverse and the greater quantum world has a beginning nor ending. Cherry picking the BGV theorem to support an ancient Kalam argument for God is a meaningless, foolish and unethical misuse of science.

Again, science does not know nor prove anything.

[shunyadragon]

OK - I've read enough to make me go cross eyed.

I've probably misunderstood it, but it seems that even the multiverse is finite - but the beginning of the multiverse still exists and is eternal.

Avoid tunnel vision on the BGV theorem, because it selectively appears to support an ancient theological argument for God. Quite simply there are a number physicists, and cosmologists who consider the Quantum world timeless based on the Theory of relativity. In this view our greater existence is neither infinite/eternal nor temporal/finite.

Take a look at the Craig/Carroll debate. Carroll discusses the many possibilities of the models and theorems concerning the nature of our physical existence.

[shunyadragon]

Okay so you admit that you have no evidence. All you can say is we do not know. When you stick in your probability it is just an unsubstantiated personal opinion.

You missed the science here. It went over your head. What was said here is not personal opinion.

All you can say is we do not 'know.' is actually a very true statement as to the problem with what Craig and seer claim.

We do not 'know' whether our universe, nor any possible universe have a beginning nor an ending.

[Tassman]

Ok Shuny, if an expanding universe is not evidence for a finite universe then what is it evidence of? What are these other possibilities? The point is, it is evidence for a beginning, even if it is not conclusive. So where is such physical evidence for your multiverse?

It is evidence of a universe expanding from the Planck epoch, but this is not necessarily the beginning of the universe because we do not know what, if anything existed beyond the Planck epoch; the Laws of Physics break down at that point. But no doubt future science will be able to draw convincing conclusions either way,via inferences and testable hypotheses.

[seer]

It is evidence of a universe expanding from the Planck epoch, but this is not necessarily the beginning of the universe because we do not know what, if anything existed beyond the Planck epoch; the Laws of Physics break down at that point. But no doubt future science will be able to draw convincing conclusions either way,via inferences and testable hypotheses.

What we do know Tass is that this universe has not been expanding eternally into the past. This universe is finite. And if the Laws of Physics do break down at the beginning one wonders if we could ever know, could we ever know what kind of laws were actually in operation at that point.

[shunyadragon]

What we do know Tass is that this universe has not been expanding eternally into the past. This universe is finite. And if the Laws of Physics do break down at the beginning one wonders if we could ever know, could we ever know what kind of laws were actually in operation at that point.

No, we do not know the universe is finite. Give science some time. Your cynical negative view toward science should make you suspicious of Vilenkin.

Tassman is correct testable hypothesis and inferences if the way of falsification in Methodological Naturalism for the present and future understanding of our Cosmos. Replicating conditions around the early conditions of our universe, as in the modern colliders is likely how will better understand the cosmos.

[seer]

No, we do not know the universe is finite. Give science some time. Your cynical negative view toward science should make you suspicious of Vilenkin.

I think you have only two choices at this present point of knowledge - either the universe has been expanding forever, which contradicts what we observe. Or the universe began to expand a finite time ago. There is no evidence for an eternal past.

[tabibito]

We have disagreement among the scientific community. Hawking declared that this universe undeniably had a beginning. Someone else declared that a beginning is moot. Should we follow the atheist lead and declare the conflict to prove that all science is unbelievable?

[mattbballman31]

Tassman,

(i) V’s Conclusion – Um, yea. You’re delusional. You remind me of those dim-witted restaurant owners on that TV show Kitchen Nightmares. And I have to be the Gordon Ramsey to tell you you’re in denial. I just spent the better part of that previous post nailing down EXPLICITLY that Craig interacted with V’s conclusion. Now for clarity’s sake, what is V.’s conclusion? Obviously, we’re meaning two different things here. By V.’s conclusion, you apparently mean: the theological implication is too simplistic, that the universe tunneled ‘from literally nothing’. Now, as for THAT, CRAIG DOES NOT IGNORE THIS CONCLUSION, moron. I feel like I’m talking to a brick wall. Do I really have to go site you quote after quote after quote where Craig deals with the problems of something coming from nothing. Further, this proves how misleading and guilty of double-speak you are. ‘Tunneling from literally nothing’. Now, what am I supposed to say here? LITERALLY nothing. Really? I thought Krauss made this whole fuss about nothing being the quantum vacuum. If it’s the freaking quantum vacuum, JUST CALL IT THE QUANTUM VACUUM. STOP CALLING IT NOTHING. You sound like freaking Bill Clinton, dude. If it’s LITERALLY nothing (whatever the crap that means), then define that, and stop with your annoying ambiguity. You love that, because it always offers you a way out. I can seize on whatever meaning I happen to think you intend, and you can just switch over to the other meaning, like that’s what you meant the whole time. I can say, ‘Wait. Something can’t come from nothing’. You: ‘It’s not absolutely nothing; it’s the quantum vacuum’. Me: ‘Well’s that’s not what Craig’s talking about; he’s talking about the absence of any properties whatsoever.’ You: ‘Oh, Craig is just a philosopher; we scientists mean the quantum vacuum, not the complete absence of properties.’ Me: ‘Well, that’s not nothing’. You: ‘It’s science, not stupid philosophy.’ Me: ‘Okay, well, the philosophical puzzles apply to the quantum vacuum too, bozo.’ You: ‘No they don’t; science proves the universe came from LITERALLY nothing’. Me: ‘What? Wait. You said nothing was the quantum vacuum’. And round and round we go, where we stop, nobody knows. You just switch back and forth, back and forth, you exasperating waste of conversation.

(ii) Yea, you’re a liar. You make stupid comments. I refuse to do the leg work for you. So, I’m resorting to moral outrage at your stupidity. If you really think Craig has not interacted with V.’s conclusion you’re either stupid, a horrible reader, blind, or malicious.

(iii) V. and the beginning of the universe – I NEVER SAID V. thinks the universe began to exist. Craig is using the BGV theorem as EVIDENCE for why ‘the universe began to exist’ is more plausible than its denial.

(iv) Hyperbole – I can’t help you here. If you’re taking offense at something this dumb, you need professional help. Maybe you were picked on as a kid, and you sat at the lunch table by yourself at school. If I opened up some wounds that reminded you of your own insecurity, that’s your problem, since you – being this super psychoanalysis – know better than me what my intentions were.

(v) Science and Philosophy – I KNOW V. is DOING SCIENCE, dummy. That’s not my point, which I wouldn’t expect a slow, slug like you to get. Science has philosophical presuppositions; it’s as simple as that. You’re just an uninformed ignoramus. He can do science all he wants. Science is glorious! But you idiots want to divorce it from its philosophical assumptions, which can’t happen, and the more you deny it, the more you look like silly, naked emperors.

(vi) Science and Presuppositions – You claim that no matter how conclusive science is, I won’t follow it, because of my philosophical presuppositions. This just confirms that you are a horrible reader that can’t comprehend a paragraph of data when it clashes with your bias. You miss the forest for the trees, and the trees for the leaves, and the leaves for the chloroform. If a philosophical argument is sound (true premises, proving a true conclusion), then science WILL NOT, CANNOT find anything that will contradict it, period. If it did, then the philosophical argument was never sound to begin with.

(vii) Dogmatism – You cherry-picked a sentence, because you’re a rhetorical, dishonest, scientific iconoclast.

(viii) When, where (!?), did I ever say that V. thought a natural explanation is not likely? Answer. I never said it. The moron is just fuming noxious misinformation like a smoggy exhaust pipe. Of course, V. thinks a natural explanation more likely. The theological implications he sets aside, because he admits he doesn’t have the expertise, which Craig does. As for other implications, Craig relies on V., as he is the authority. Craig, then, philosophically analyzes V.’s other possibilities, which is Craig’s expertise. It doesn’t make either Craig or V. automatically right or wrong. It’s just two intelligent men discussing an issue.

(ix) Self-refutation – Once again, you’re in denial. To say that a metaphysical argument cannot be tested is not a scientific statement. It itself is based on assumption or axiom. Therefore, according to your logic, I shouldn’t even read your last paragraph. But OF COURSE you’re trying to make a non-scientific, metaphysical statement or thesis that I should believe. THEREFORE, metaphysics and philosophy has some undeniable merit! You keep SLITTING YOUR THROAT and not even noticing it. You take out your eyes to look at them and complain when you don’t see anything!!!

[shunyadragon]

I think you have only two choices at this present point of knowledge - either the universe has been expanding forever, which contradicts what we observe. Or the universe began to expand a finite time ago. There is no evidence for an eternal past.

There is at least one other chose based on the foundation of the Theory of Relativity. The greater cosmos is timeless. It is not known that the universe will expand forever, nor is it known that it had a beginning. Another is the possible our universe was previously a huge black hole that collapsed prior to the one plank time.

Source: http://www.universetoday.com/104863/goodbye-big-bang-hello-hyper-black-hole-a-new-theory-on-universes-creation/

Could the famed “Big Bang” theory need a revision? A group of theoretical physicists suppose the birth of the universe could have happened after a four-dimensional star collapsed into a black hole and ejected debris.

Before getting into their findings, let’s just preface this by saying nobody knows anything for sure. Humans obviously weren’t around at the time the universe began.

© Copyright Original Source

Read more: http://www.universetoday.com/104863/...#ixzz39C2yusAj

Again seer, we know nothing prior to one plank time. There is absolutely no physical evidence of any beginning prior to this. It remains a distinct possibility that the universe came from something else prior to the one plank time.

[shunyadragon]

(iii) V. and the beginning of the universe – I NEVER SAID V. thinks the universe began to exist. Craig is using the BGV theorem as EVIDENCE for why ‘the universe began to exist’ is more plausible than its denial.

True, but Craig has no basis for claiming 'the universe began to exist is more plausible than its deniable.' Selective cherry picking of science to justify a religious agenda is unethical.

[tabibito]

True, but Craig has no basis for claiming 'the universe began to exist is more plausible than its deniable.' Selective cherry picking of science to justify a religious agenda is unethical.

? He's not even entitled to claim that one is more plausible than the other?