An Infinite Past?

[seer]

Actually this is wrong as well. Just because you have infinite number of oranges, it doesn't mean you'll encounter an apple. Finding cosmological scale gravitational waves might be good for falsifying the Standard Model of Cosmology, however its not impossible to find evidence that can falsify certain multiverse types.

Well Leonhard can you think of one observed property that could falsify a multiverse theory? In other words, what property or law or parameter of our universe could not be the result of the multiverse? Especially if like Alan Guth claimed that there would be an infinite number of universes and an infinite number of configurations.

[seer]

Falsification is an essential requirement for a true scientific theory, as opposed to the pseudo-science we find among ID proponents for example. But with the multiverse we are not dealing with established scientific theory but a collection of hypotheses still at the testing stage - even so, it’s increasingly evident that the convergence of evidence is supporting some form of multiverse.

Furthermore, as shunya keeps reminding you, the type of observational evidence and falsification you demand is grounded in the Classical Mechanics of Newton, which almost certainly won’t be applicable to the multiverse and it's grounding in the counter-intuitive mechanics of Quantum Physics. The evidence and falsification will of necessity be based upon inference and mathematical formulas not direct observation. I.e. considerably more than for your preferred ‘god-did-it’ hypothesis, which is only supported by subjective religious experience and revelation.

Let me as again Tass, if there are an infinite number of outcomes (i.e. an infinite number different universe with different properties) what observable physical property in our universe could falsify the multiverse theory. Can you even name one? And it is not me who is demanding this kind of evidence it was Dr. Steinhardt who knows way more than you or I. And mathematical formulas are meaningless unless they are confirmed by observation. There are a number of different string theories where the math is correct, but they contradict each other - so which one is correct? You are effectively giving up the idea of falsification.

[mattbballman31]

Craig misrepresents Vilenkin by arguing that the BGV Theorem allows for a beginning of the universe. It doesn’t! The BGV Theorem does not say that the universe began to exist; it says that inflationary models are past-incomplete, and require new physics to describe the boundary condition. Vilenkin’s proposal is that the boundary condition can be described by quantum tunnelling. I.e. Quantum Mechanics takes over where Relativity Theory breaks down at the Planck epoch.

Has the BGV Theorem been hijacked? - Um, no. Or, if it has, you haven't given me a good reason why it has. All you have said is that Craig has an agenda. You haven't shown (or, you haven't shown me!) why Craig has mishandled it. If he has, show me! I'm interested!

The geodesics being past-incomplete is known by Craig! But Velinkin says they're not assuming that gravity is described by classical physics. T holds regardless of what physics you pick! V: "The only assumption that we made was that the expansion rate of the universe never gets below some nonzero value, no matter how small. This assumption should certainly be satisfied in the inflating false vacuum. The conclusion is that past-eternal inflation without a beginning is impossible." Woops!

As far as I can comprehend, the Theorem (T) was formulated as a rebuttal to Eternal Inflationary models (EI). These models allowed for a past-eternal universe. So, for example, Chaotic Inflation, in which there's a 'global space' or 'generic manifold' (sometimes equated with the multi-verse), experiences 'regional inflation', like a tree growing branches, and those branches growing sub-branches, and those sub-branches growing twigs, and so on. Because my branch, so to speak, stops growing (inflating), that doesn't mean, according to EI, there aren't conditions for other branches/twigs to grow (inflate) from the original tree/global space/generic manifold/multi-verse. And what produces inflation? It's this 'field of exotic energy' which permeates 'empty space'. And the assumption they worked with (there's always assumptions, I realize this) is that the density of this 'field of exotic energy' (FEE) never changes. This made it like Einstein's cosmological constant, because it never changes, and is therefore not affected by space/time. But what happens when space is expanding? Well, more energy has to be generated to keep the density in tact! Of course, there's no certainties in science, so there's still debate about where this energy comes from. Craig thinks (and I agree) that this looks like space 'clones itself'. I mean, there's absolutely no material cause for the new creation of energy to sustain the density of FEE, as space expands. Interestingly, it looks like there's efficient without material causation: creation ex nihilo! And if it can happen here, why (it can be pointed out) can't it happen with the universe as a whole?

But leaving that aside, what happens as FEE expands according to EI? Well, parts of it start to decay. The decayed parts transform into the 'empty space' (ES) we observe. ES's energy density is a heck of a lot lower! And so huge amounts of the density permeates a new inflationary branch, or twig, or bubble, or pick your metaphor. This huge amount of density is then the matter we see in normal observational experience. In one of the newer versions of EI (call it EI 2.0), the decayed parts transform into 'Quantum Tunneling Events' (QTE). These states/events are like radioactive isotopes, because they last for a little bit and then change to a (typically) lower value of the Cosmological Constant (CC). This state of lower energy (because the value is lower) is very small at first, but as CC makes it expand, it becomes a bigger and bigger bubble, the bubble itself still 'nested' in the 'original space' (OS) from which it bubbled. Okay, but what happens to OS? Remember, part of it decayed to form our bubble, our universe. OS is still there! It goes on expanding on its merry way, faster and faster. It's CC is a whole heck of a lot bigger than our bubble, so its expansion is going to outrun our own. This is what physicists call the False Vacuum. Since it expands much quicker than it decays, they infer that inflation will go on forever. There will always be these bubbles decaying out of an expanding OS.

The next question is: we see how the model shows a future-eternal universe, but does it show a past-eternal one? This the point where you say Craig hijacked T. But disconfirming a past-eternal inflation is exactly why T was formulated in the first place! Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin's singularity theorems all probably disconfirm this past-eternal universe. We'll use their wording. They say that 'null and time-like geodesics are, in general, past-incomplete in inflationary models, whether or not energy conditions hold'. Now, right way, what are we thinking? Is past-incomplete the same as saying not past-eternal? Right? I'll get to this in a second. This past-incompleteness holds if this 'averaged expansion condition' holds for the 'past-directed geodesics'. Then they say that: "The only assumption that we made was that the expansion rate of the universe never gets below some nonzero value, no matter how small. This assumption should certainly be satisfied in the inflating false vacuum. The conclusion is that past-eternal inflation without a beginning is impossible."

WITHOUT A BEGINNING! Isn't this the same word Craig used in premise 2? Again, I'm mystified as to why T is hijacked! Craig then infers what you continue to call misrepresentation (and I don't see it misrepresented at all): " . . . any universe . . . which, on average, expands has to connect, in a finite time, to a past boundary." Anytime you have EXPANDING SPACE, observers 'tracing out a worldline (to the future) slows down', which is the famous Red Shift. Imagine Jane, Jill, and Jones. Jane and Jill are motionless on an expanding space; Jones is moving relative to Jane and Jill on their expanding space. Vilenkin would call Jones 'the space traveler'. Imagine that Jones is 'moving by inertia', his spaceship engines turned off, and he's been moving from eternity. As Jones flies by, Jane determines Jones' velocity. As space expands, Jane and Jill are getting further away from each other. So, once Jones flies by Jill, Jones' velocity will be smaller. If Jones' velocity gets smaller and smaller into the future, then it gets bigger and bigger into the past, getting closer and closer to the speed of light as a limit (Alan Guth supports this). Yet you can't get faster than the speed of light! THEREFORE, observers BEFORE Jane and Jill can't keep going back and back and back along a past worldline forever. And so the past worldline has a finite length. So . . . . . T proves there has to be a singularity. The observers can't go on forever into the past. They will have BEGAN TO EXIST some finite time in the past. So, again I ask: how has T been hijacked?

Sure, Andrei Linde critiques this implication, saying T applies to parts of, and not the whole of, the universe. Sure, there are at least 4 popular exceptions to T - Infinite Contraction: e.g. De Sitter Cosmologies; Asymptotically Static Theorems: e.g. Emergent Model Class; Infinite Cyclicity: e.g. Baum-Frampton's Phantom Bounce; Time Reversals at the Singularity: e.g. Aguirre/Gratton's model - ALL OF WHICH CRAIG IS AWARE OF!!! Sure, Craig is also aware of other exceptions to the Hawking-Penrose theorems besides Eternal Inflation, like Closed Timelike Curves or Quantum Gravity, with the Background Fluctuations, String Theory, Loop Quantum, and Semi-classical versions with Hartle/Hawing No Boundary model or Vilenkin's Tunneling from Nothing model. Or, that String Theory divides into its own versions, with Steinhardt/Turok's Ekpyrotic/Cyclic Models or Veneziano/Gasperini's Pre-Big-Bang Inflation or Susskind/other's String Landscape models. What I fail to see in all of this is how Craig hijacked T!?!?!?! Where? How? When? Even here Vilenkin says, " . . . there are no models at this time that provide a satisfactory model for a universe without a beginning."

Nope! Moral Truths and Aesthetic Truths are just different ways of looking at the existing universe. Slavery was once deemed OK, now it is considered immoral; fat fleshy women were once deemed beautiful by the likes of Rubens and now they are not. Values change, the underlying facts do not.

As for mathematics, the only true premises or axioms in maths are what we define to be true (such as 2+2=4). Once we have the axioms, a valid proof for any theorem makes it impossible for the theorem to be false. But these are not new truths about nature either except inasmuch as a tool of science to acquire new knowledge.

As for moral/aesthetic truths, it's a sweeping claim to reduce these to ways of looking at the universe. Yes, slavery was once deemed OK, but this doesn't make values subjective any more than saying a flat-earth was once deemed OK, and its now considered false. Your whole analogy begs the question. Changing perspectives doesn't mean the values have changed, it means the moral facts have been differently applied. Slavery's rightness depended on the application of a prior moral truth we all agree on: humans have intrinsic value and shouldn't be used as means to an end. Slaveholders thought that blacks weren't humans. From there, they made the application to slavery's rightness. But slavery wasn't right, not because there values were wrong, but because the values were wrongly applied based on an incorrect conception of 'human'. The same principle applies to aesthetic truths.

Consider:

1. One ought not to sexually molest anyone.

I consider this to be a moral truth. Science didn't come along and make this discovery. Science didn't entertain 1 as a falsifiable hypothesis, try to disconfirm 1, and come to the conclusion that 1 is true. This is a value judgment that expresses a truth about reality before any sort of experimental confirmation. If you're saying 1 reworks existing knowledge in the sense that we had to have some empirical interaction of the world before we can even know moral truths, this is an empirical observation and doesn't mean that science confirms 1. I don't see the connection at all. It's hard to know what you mean, honestly. Is it that you mean our senses put us in touch with reality, that when experiencing reality we feel our conscience confirming 1 when either witnessing, directly experiencing, or imaginatively entertaining some state of affairs in which 1 becomes applicable: and that when we judge 1 to be true, we're reworking this existing knowledge, the 'stuff of experience' filtered through the senses. In other words, if 'reworking existing knowledge' means rearranging the raw data of empirical sensations, I fail to see how 1 can be a member of this raw date. But again, it's very difficult to know what you even mean. It seems to me that 1 is a priori, that it might be impossible without experience, but that it isn't a mere reworking of those experiences, but a metaphysical add-on made possible by experience. But even if 1 is rendered possible by experience, it doesn't follow at all that science justifies 1! How does that follow?

As for mathematics, I don't think you understand something. Even if mathematics can't generate new knowledge, it doesn't follow at all that mathematics is justified by science. How is the proof for a set of axioms justified scientifically? How does the scientific method enter into the picture at all? And if mathematics is a useful tool for science to generate new knowledge, how is it that mathematics doesn't have something unique about it that science can't justify using its own steam, so to speak? If mathematics is the tool, how is it that the science can justify the tool? The tool justifies itself, and science uses the mathematically justified tool for scientific exploration.

Philosophy can use science as science can use mathematics. As for testing hypotheses, philosophy can do this as well. Consider: Plato puts forth the hypothesis that knowledge is justified, true belief. Edmond Gettier comes along and provides counter-examples using thought-experiments that show someone can have justified, true belief, but not knowledge. Therefore, knowledge is not justified, true belief, but something else. Gettier showed us something new about reality through a priori thought experiments, compared his epistemological model with Plato's, and arrived at a true conclusion, with absolutely no empirical confirmation.

FOCUS: “Quantum Mechanics is required at this point because it takes over where ‘Relativity Theory’ breaks down - namely at the Planck epoch”. This doesn't mean that there is nothing beyond the Planck era - there are several indications that say otherwise. Therefore, you cannot refer to “an absolute beginning” at this stage. We simply don't have sufficient information to do so.

As I touched on above, there are (1) a whole heck of a lot more options than just saying 'Quantum Physics takes over', and (2) you continue to ignore my point that acausal theories of Quantum Physics (QP) are in the minority. As I've said over and over again, QP means indeterminate, not acausal, an epistemic, not a physical, implication. What you don't understand and seem to ignore is that acausal interpretations are in the minority, and you can keep causal theories of Quantum Physics while still discarding classical physics.

Craig is not in a position to know; he’s intruding into a field where he is unqualified. And despite Craig’s philosophical meanderings, the growing consensus among qualified, experienced cosmologists is that our universe is just one infinitesimal component of a vast – probably infinite – multiverse that itself had no origin in time. Even theist cosmologists such as Davies are coming to this conclusion.

I have yet to be shown that Craig is mistaken. Craig would admit he is an unqualified scientist; that's why I have a sneaking suspicion he sites qualified scientists. Also, my point on Davies still stands. Davies is a Christian. That means that even if he is leaning toward a multiverse hypothesis, and even if he believes along with V. that it had no origin in time, he does believe it has an origin, as does V. The fact that the universe/multiverse didn't come into being at a singular point doesn't mean it didn't come into being. V. think it's quantum tunneling from 'nothing'; Davies probably thinks it's God. The point is you're saying Craig can't use T, the theorem, because V. disagrees with Craig's ultimate conclusion about God; if that's true, you can't use Davies to prove a multiverse, because Davies disagrees with your ultimate conclusion about quantum tunneling from 'nothing'. You can't have it both ways.

In quantum theory things happen without specific, initiating causes. E.g. virtual particles appear from nothing and then return back to nothing. They exist for a fleeting instant, but they do exist and their reality is shown via the Casimir effect. Also, have a look at radioactive decay – to give two examples.

I don't deny any of this on acausal theories. You continue to ignore my point: acausal theories of Quantum Physics (QP) are in the minority. As I've said over and over again, QP means indeterminate, not acausal, an epistemic, not a physical, implication. What you don't understand and seem to ignore is that acausal interpretations are in the minority, and you can keep causal theories of Quantum Physics while still discarding classical physics.

As well, Guth also takes the BVG-theorem further in that: "There is of course no conclusion that an eternally inflating model must have a unique beginning, and no conclusion that there is an upper bound on the length of all backwards-going geodesics from a given point. There may be models with regions of contraction embedded within the expanding region that could evade our theorem."

http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0702178v1.pdf

In short a past and future eternal universe.

Craig is aware of all of this! Andrei Linde said the same thing. BVG doesn't say anything about PARTICULAR 'past-inextendible geodesics' relating to 'regional' singularities, and how that relates to "an upper bound on the length of all backwards-going geodesics from a given point." As we look back, the geodesic does NOT extend to the infinite past. For the commoving observer - commoving with respect to expansion noted above - the geodesic doesn't extend to the infinite past. Robert Wald says these geodesics are the 'symptom', not the 'disease'. They are the symptom of a singularity! This commoving observer will have had to begun its existence.

Think about what? The question was: “What gaps in science have been filled in by religion”? I'm waiting.

Science once thought the universe didn't have a beginning. Christianity said it did. Science confirmed a fact Christianity was already aware of. So, before science confirmed that fact, it was a gap in scientific knowledge. So, back before the confirmation, Christianity filled in the gap.

Oh yes philosophy has its uses, e.g. it can ask pertinent questions. The thing is that it cannot answer its own questions, about cosmology for example, without the input of science.

Then explain why Gettier answered his own questions about the nature of knowledge apart from science. Explain why philosophers of science and cosmologists interact with philosophical arguments against the metaphysical possibility of an actual infinite.

I think one can make a strong case that the progress of modern scientific knowledge has been extremely productive and consistent over the past five hundred years - beginning with Copernicus and Galileo. This despite the best efforts of theology and the likes of you to oppose it from the very start! The heliocentric model of the universe may go out of “fashion”, but I think it’s a fairly secure scientific construct. Don’t you?

You're not getting my point. You stack the deck against even raising doubts about a past-eternal multiverse by making it immune from criticism by wrapping the proposal with a scientific, security blanket. The fact is, a past-eternal multiverse can be disconfirmed, and I think it is disconfirmed by BGV's theorem. And as more proof of your rhetorical tactics, Copernicus and Galileo were religious! Science and religion aren't enemies. Their opposition was politically-driven power-plays grounded in dogmatism, not religion per se. It couldn't have been. And sure the heliocentric model will not go out of fashion, but it's bad form to suggest that because this model won't go out of fashion, then whatever science is trying to confirm presently is automatically, probably the case, or that philosophical and scientific critiques can't, or haven't been, leveled against both the multiverse and a past-eternal one at that.

And, while we can't assume the mutli-verse will be shown to correct someday, the fact that so many eminent, experienced cosmologists are moving in that direction is indicative that, as a working hypothesis, it has a lot going for it.

I can't believe we agree on something! But to silence discussion of potential pitfalls because progress is moving in that direction should be discouraged. Besides, the multiverse wouldn't even be a problem for me; it's past-eternal phenomena that give me philosophical heartburn.

[Leonhard]

Well yes - it is after the Planck Epoch, where the quantum effects of gravity dominated physical interactions. But the issue under discussion is the multiverse, genius, not Big Bang Cosmology.

In other words, we've never talked about newtonian mechanics. That's just a label you're pulling out to smear seer, and anyone else who says things you don't enjoy hearing. Its a smarmy way to say "You're old fashioned". I looked back through the debate and saw neither seer, or anyone else referring to newtonian mechanics.

Which means you bought into Shunya's use of technical terms to make himself sound far smarter than he really is.

[Leonhard]

Well Leonhard can you think of one observed property that could falsify a multiverse theory? In other words, what property or law or parameter of our universe could not be the result of the multiverse?

Depends on the type of multiverse, if you're looking for a panacea thing that's inconsistent with all multiverse models, I'm afraid you'll be looking for a long time.

However take the "Fecund Universe" proposed by Lee Smolin, where the Big Bang was caused by by the collapse of a black hole, it can be falsified by demonstrating that the universe is far from being an optimal black hole generator. This is how Lee Smolin himself is already investigating its validity. Secondly, a hard falsification would be achieved by demonstrating that information is not lost when something falls into a blackhole.

For various reasons, no less that physicists suspect that blackholes don't delete information, and that dark energy means that the vast majority of universes would expand forever, means that its very unlikely that this model is true.

And showing that something is very unlikely to be true is sufficient for falsification.

How to do that depends on the multiverse model. I've suggested that you sit down for a while and actually read about these things. If you want suggestions about what to read send me a pm and I'll supply you with some works that will bring you half up to speed. At least more than what Tassman or Shunya has read that's for sure.

Especially if like Alan Guth claimed that there would be an infinite number of universes and an infinite number of configurations.

Just because its possible to encounter some configurations out there, the question is: given the truth of this hypothesis, what sort of evidence would I expect to see? And here its sometimes possible to come up with evidence that can be found that will falsify or verify the theory. The predictions can either be weak or strong. They're weak if they're already expected to be true for other reasons (for example String Landscape requires basically General Theory of Relativity and Quantum Field Theory to both be true and have no violations).

[shunyadragon]

The Standard Big Bang Cosmology is thoroughly General Relativistic and takes about as much of Quantum Field Theory into account as we know how to do. If we do use newtonian mechanics, please out where.

In reality though Shunya, you don't have any clue about quantum mechanics other than knowing that its "weird".

You missed the reason for my response in seer's words

So we are back to actual observable properties in our actual universe and what physical condition or properties could disprove a multiverse theory.

This is in reality a 'Newtonian view of our physical existence that the evidence is limited to 'actual observable properties in our actual universe and what physical condition or properties.'

Do you believe this is the standard and limits of evidence for modern physics and cosmology?

It is not a matter of what I know nor not know. It is a matter of the nature of Methodological Naturalism, falsification, and how the contemporary theorems and models are developed in physics and cosmology.

[Leonhard]

This is in reality a 'Newtonian view of our physical existence that the evidence is limited to 'actual observable properties in our actual universe and what physical condition or properties.'

How so? Its common sense, unless I'm missing a twisted interpretation of what you're saying. If its not observable, how on can you use it as evidence?

Feel free to explain, but I'm not sure that you can.

Do you believe this is the standard and limits of evidence for modern physics and cosmology?

That you actually have physical evidence? And that its something measurable? Yes, only cranks asks for anything else.

[shunyadragon]

How so? Its common sense, unless I'm missing a twisted interpretation of what you're saying. If its not observable, how on can you use it as evidence?

Feel free to explain, but I'm not sure that you can.



That you actually have physical evidence? And that its something measurable? Yes, only cranks asks for anything else.

We have no actual physical evidence for the basic particles of matter.

[JimL]

We have no actual physical evidence for the basic particles of matter.

I think that an excellent point shunya. So that the fundamental particles even exist is unfalsifiable. But then again, wouldn't the fundamental nature of matter be energy?

[Tassman]

Has the BGV Theorem been hijacked? - Um, no. Or, if it has, you haven't given me a good reason why it has. All you have said is that Craig has an agenda. You haven't shown (or, you haven't shown me!) why Craig has mishandled it. If he has, show me! I'm interested!

The geodesics being past-incomplete is known by Craig! But Velinkin says they're not assuming that gravity is described by classical physics. T holds regardless of what physics you pick! V: "The only assumption that we made was that the expansion rate of the universe never gets below some nonzero value, no matter how small. This assumption should certainly be satisfied in the inflating false vacuum. The conclusion is that past-eternal inflation without a beginning is impossible." Woops!

As far as I can comprehend, the Theorem (T) was formulated as a rebuttal to Eternal Inflationary models (EI). These models allowed for a past-eternal universe. So, for example, Chaotic Inflation, in which there's a 'global space' or 'generic manifold' (sometimes equated with the multi-verse), experiences 'regional inflation', like a tree growing branches, and those branches growing sub-branches, and those sub-branches growing twigs, and so on. Because my branch, so to speak, stops growing (inflating), that doesn't mean, according to EI, there aren't conditions for other branches/twigs to grow (inflate) from the original tree/global space/generic manifold/multi-verse. And what produces inflation? It's this 'field of exotic energy' which permeates 'empty space'. And the assumption they worked with (there's always assumptions, I realize this) is that the density of this 'field of exotic energy' (FEE) never changes. This made it like Einstein's cosmological constant, because it never changes, and is therefore not affected by space/time. But what happens when space is expanding? Well, more energy has to be generated to keep the density in tact! Of course, there's no certainties in science, so there's still debate about where this energy comes from. Craig thinks (and I agree) that this looks like space 'clones itself'. I mean, there's absolutely no material cause for the new creation of energy to sustain the density of FEE, as space expands. Interestingly, it looks like there's efficient without material causation: creation ex nihilo! And if it can happen here, why (it can be pointed out) can't it happen with the universe as a whole?

But leaving that aside, what happens as FEE expands according to EI? Well, parts of it start to decay. The decayed parts transform into the 'empty space' (ES) we observe. ES's energy density is a heck of a lot lower! And so huge amounts of the density permeates a new inflationary branch, or twig, or bubble, or pick your metaphor. This huge amount of density is then the matter we see in normal observational experience. In one of the newer versions of EI (call it EI 2.0), the decayed parts transform into 'Quantum Tunneling Events' (QTE). These states/events are like radioactive isotopes, because they last for a little bit and then change to a (typically) lower value of the Cosmological Constant (CC). This state of lower energy (because the value is lower) is very small at first, but as CC makes it expand, it becomes a bigger and bigger bubble, the bubble itself still 'nested' in the 'original space' (OS) from which it bubbled. Okay, but what happens to OS? Remember, part of it decayed to form our bubble, our universe. OS is still there! It goes on expanding on its merry way, faster and faster. It's CC is a whole heck of a lot bigger than our bubble, so its expansion is going to outrun our own. This is what physicists call the False Vacuum. Since it expands much quicker than it decays, they infer that inflation will go on forever. There will always be these bubbles decaying out of an expanding OS.

The next question is: we see how the model shows a future-eternal universe, but does it show a past-eternal one? This the point where you say Craig hijacked T. But disconfirming a past-eternal inflation is exactly why T was formulated in the first place! Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin's singularity theorems all probably disconfirm this past-eternal universe. We'll use their wording. They say that 'null and time-like geodesics are, in general, past-incomplete in inflationary models, whether or not energy conditions hold'. Now, right way, what are we thinking? Is past-incomplete the same as saying not past-eternal? Right? I'll get to this in a second. This past-incompleteness holds if this 'averaged expansion condition' holds for the 'past-directed geodesics'. Then they say that: "The only assumption that we made was that the expansion rate of the universe never gets below some nonzero value, no matter how small. This assumption should certainly be satisfied in the inflating false vacuum. The conclusion is that past-eternal inflation without a beginning is impossible."

WITHOUT A BEGINNING! Isn't this the same word Craig used in premise 2? Again, I'm mystified as to why T is hijacked! Craig then infers what you continue to call misrepresentation (and I don't see it misrepresented at all): " . . . any universe . . . which, on average, expands has to connect, in a finite time, to a past boundary." Anytime you have EXPANDING SPACE, observers 'tracing out a worldline (to the future) slows down', which is the famous Red Shift. Imagine Jane, Jill, and Jones. Jane and Jill are motionless on an expanding space; Jones is moving relative to Jane and Jill on their expanding space. Vilenkin would call Jones 'the space traveler'. Imagine that Jones is 'moving by inertia', his spaceship engines turned off, and he's been moving from eternity. As Jones flies by, Jane determines Jones' velocity. As space expands, Jane and Jill are getting further away from each other. So, once Jones flies by Jill, Jones' velocity will be smaller. If Jones' velocity gets smaller and smaller into the future, then it gets bigger and bigger into the past, getting closer and closer to the speed of light as a limit (Alan Guth supports this). Yet you can't get faster than the speed of light! THEREFORE, observers BEFORE Jane and Jill can't keep going back and back and back along a past worldline forever. And so the past worldline has a finite length. So . . . . . T proves there has to be a singularity. The observers can't go on forever into the past. They will have BEGAN TO EXIST some finite time in the past. So, again I ask: how has T been hijacked?

Sure, Andrei Linde critiques this implication, saying T applies to parts of, and not the whole of, the universe. Sure, there are at least 4 popular exceptions to T - Infinite Contraction: e.g. De Sitter Cosmologies; Asymptotically Static Theorems: e.g. Emergent Model Class; Infinite Cyclicity: e.g. Baum-Frampton's Phantom Bounce; Time Reversals at the Singularity: e.g. Aguirre/Gratton's model - ALL OF WHICH CRAIG IS AWARE OF!!! Sure, Craig is also aware of other exceptions to the Hawking-Penrose theorems besides Eternal Inflation, like Closed Timelike Curves or Quantum Gravity, with the Background Fluctuations, String Theory, Loop Quantum, and Semi-classical versions with Hartle/Hawing No Boundary model or Vilenkin's Tunneling from Nothing model. Or, that String Theory divides into its own versions, with Steinhardt/Turok's Ekpyrotic/Cyclic Models or Veneziano/Gasperini's Pre-Big-Bang Inflation or Susskind/other's String Landscape models. What I fail to see in all of this is how Craig hijacked T!?!?!?! Where? How? When? Even here Vilenkin says, " . . . there are no models at this time that provide a satisfactory model for a universe without a beginning."

OUR is premature. Nothing in the BVG theorem indicates an absolute beginning from nothingness with reference to the proposed greater cosmos.

As for moral/aesthetic truths, it's a sweeping claim to reduce these to ways of looking at the universe. Yes, slavery was once deemed OK, but this doesn't make values subjective any more than saying a flat-earth was once deemed OK, and its now considered false. Your whole analogy begs the question. Changing perspectives doesn't mean the values have changed, it means the moral facts have been differently applied. Slavery's rightness depended on the application of a prior moral truth we all agree on: humans have intrinsic value and shouldn't be used as means to an end. Slaveholders thought that blacks weren't humans. From there, they made the application to slavery's rightness. But slavery wasn't right, not because there values were wrong, but because the values were wrongly applied based on an incorrect conception of 'human'. The same principle applies to aesthetic truths.

Consider:

1. One ought not to sexually molest anyone.

I consider this to be a moral truth. Science didn't come along and make this discovery. Science didn't entertain 1 as a falsifiable hypothesis, try to disconfirm 1, and come to the conclusion that 1 is true. This is a value judgment that expresses a truth about reality before any sort of experimental confirmation. If you're saying 1 reworks existing knowledge in the sense that we had to have some empirical interaction of the world before we can even know moral truths, this is an empirical observation and doesn't mean that science confirms 1. I don't see the connection at all. It's hard to know what you mean, honestly. Is it that you mean our senses put us in touch with reality, that when experiencing reality we feel our conscience confirming 1 when either witnessing, directly experiencing, or imaginatively entertaining some state of affairs in which 1 becomes applicable: and that when we judge 1 to be true, we're reworking this existing knowledge, the 'stuff of experience' filtered through the senses. In other words, if 'reworking existing knowledge' means rearranging the raw data of empirical sensations, I fail to see how 1 can be a member of this raw date. But again, it's very difficult to know what you even mean. It seems to me that 1 is a priori, that it might be impossible without experience, but that it isn't a mere reworking of those experiences, but a metaphysical add-on made possible by experience. But even if 1 is rendered possible by experience, it doesn't follow at all that science justifies 1! How does that follow?

As for mathematics, I don't think you understand something. Even if mathematics can't generate new knowledge, it doesn't follow at all that mathematics is justified by science. How is the proof for a set of axioms justified scientifically? How does the scientific method enter into the picture at all? And if mathematics is a useful tool for science to generate new knowledge, how is it that mathematics doesn't have something unique about it that science can't justify using its own steam, so to speak? If mathematics is the tool, how is it that the science can justify the tool? The tool justifies itself, and science uses the mathematically justified tool for scientific exploration.

Philosophy can use science as science can use mathematics. As for testing hypotheses, philosophy can do this as well. Consider: Plato puts forth the hypothesis that knowledge is justified, true belief. Edmond Gettier comes along and provides counter-examples using thought-experiments that show someone can have justified, true belief, but not knowledge. Therefore, knowledge is not justified, true belief, but something else. Gettier showed us something new about reality through a priori thought experiments, compared his epistemological model with Plato's, and arrived at a true conclusion, with absolutely no empirical confirmation.

As I touched on above, there are (1) a whole heck of a lot more options than just saying 'Quantum Physics takes over', and (2) you continue to ignore my point that acausal theories of Quantum Physics (QP) are in the minority. As I've said over and over again, QP means indeterminate, not acausal, an epistemic, not a physical, implication. What you don't understand and seem to ignore is that acausal interpretations are in the minority, and you can keep causal theories of Quantum Physics while still discarding classical physics.

The point in discussion is that because Relativity Theory breaks down at the Planck Epoch, this does not necessarily mean that there is nothing earlier than Planck era. It just means that different physics, i.e. Quantum Mechanics, are required at this point.

I have yet to be shown that Craig is mistaken. Craig would admit he is an unqualified scientist; that's why I have a sneaking suspicion he sites qualified scientists. Also, my point on Davies still stands. Davies is a Christian. That means that even if he is leaning toward a multiverse hypothesis, and even if he believes along with V. that it had no origin in time, he does believe it has an origin, as does V. The fact that the universe/multiverse didn't come into being at a singular point doesn't mean it didn't come into being. V. think it's quantum tunneling from 'nothing'; Davies probably thinks it's God. The point is you're saying Craig can't use T, the theorem, because V. disagrees with Craig's ultimate conclusion about God; if that's true, you can't use Davies to prove a multiverse, because Davies disagrees with your ultimate conclusion about quantum tunneling from 'nothing'. You can't have it both ways.

- probably infinite -probably infinite multiverse" .

As for Vilenkin see above!

I don't deny any of this on acausal theories. You continue to ignore my point: acausal theories of Quantum Physics (QP) are in the minority. As I've said over and over again, QP means indeterminate, not acausal, an epistemic, not a physical, implication. What you don't understand and seem to ignore is that acausal interpretations are in the minority, and you can keep causal theories of Quantum Physics while still discarding classical physics.

So what, in your view, is the CAUSE for virtual particles appearing from nothing out of the vacuum and then returning back to nothing. They exist for a fleeting instant and their reality is shown via the Casimir effect.

Craig is aware of all of this! Andrei Linde said the same thing. BVG doesn't say anything about PARTICULAR 'past-inextendible geodesics' relating to 'regional' singularities, and how that relates to "an upper bound on the length of all backwards-going geodesics from a given point." As we look back, the geodesic does NOT extend to the infinite past. For the commoving observer - commoving with respect to expansion noted above - the geodesic doesn't extend to the infinite past. Robert Wald says these geodesics are the 'symptom', not the 'disease'. They are the symptom of a singularity! This commoving observer will have had to begun its existence.

Except that Guth disagrees: "There is of course no conclusion that an eternally inflating model must have a unique beginning, and no conclusion that there is an upper bound on the length of all backwards-going geodesics from a given point. There may be models with regions of contraction embedded within the expanding region that could evade our theorem." I.e. the BVG Theorem.

Science once thought the universe didn't have a beginning. Christianity said it did. Science confirmed a fact Christianity was already aware of. So, before science confirmed that fact, it was a gap in scientific knowledge. So, back before the confirmation, Christianity filled in the gap.

Then explain why Gettier answered his own questions about the nature of knowledge apart from science. Explain why philosophers of science and cosmologists interact with philosophical arguments against the metaphysical possibility of an actual infinite.

No one is denying the usefulness of epistemology. But it is not able to generate new facts about the natural universe without the input of science.

You're not getting my point. You stack the deck against even raising doubts about a past-eternal multiverse by making it immune from criticism by wrapping the proposal with a scientific, security blanket. The fact is, a past-eternal multiverse can be disconfirmed, and I think it is disconfirmed by BGV's theorem. And as more proof of your rhetorical tactics, Copernicus and Galileo were religious! Science and religion aren't enemies. Their opposition was politically-driven power-plays grounded in dogmatism, not religion per se. It couldn't have been. And sure the heliocentric model will not go out of fashion, but it's bad form to suggest that because this model won't go out of fashion, then whatever science is trying to confirm presently is automatically, probably the case, or that philosophical and scientific critiques can't, or haven't been, leveled against both the multiverse and a past-eternal one at that.

I can't believe we agree on something! But to silence discussion of potential pitfalls because progress is moving in that direction should be discouraged. Besides, the multiverse wouldn't even be a problem for me; it's past-eternal phenomena that give me philosophical heartburn.

you against silencing the discussion on this point.

[Tassman]

In other words, we've never talked about newtonian mechanics. That's just a label you're pulling out to smear seer, and anyone else who says things you don't enjoy hearing. Its a smarmy way to say "You're old fashioned". I looked back through the debate and saw neither seer, or anyone else referring to newtonian mechanics.

Which means you bought into Shunya's use of technical terms to make himself sound far smarter than he really is.

Let me as again Tass, if there are an infinite number of outcomes (i.e. an infinite number different universe with different properties) what observable physical property in our universe could falsify the multiverse theory. Can you even name one? And it is not me who is demanding this kind of evidence it was Dr. Steinhardt who knows way more than you or I. And mathematical formulas are meaningless unless they are confirmed by observation. There are a number of different string theories where the math is correct, but they contradict each other - so which one is correct? You are effectively giving up the idea of falsification.

knowhttp://www.ag-physics.org/structure/

[shunyadragon]

I think that an excellent point shunya. So that the fundamental particles even exist is unfalsifiable. But then again, wouldn't the fundamental nature of matter be energy?

The existence of the basic particles of matter are predicted to exist, and we have indirect evidence that is sufficient to support that they exist, but they would not meet seer's requirement od actual 'observable evidence.' Tassman gave more good details.

Another limit of the Newtonian view of our physical existence within our universe is that is based 'actual observable evidence.' Once you enter the twentieth century and the Theory of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, evidence goes beyond 'actual observable evidence.' We know more concerning evolution then we do about gravity.

[seer]

The existence of the basic particles of matter are predicted to exist, and we have indirect evidence that is sufficient to support that they exist, but they would not meet seer's requirement od actual 'observable evidence.' Tassman gave more good details.

No Suny, if this is the case then no one is compelled to believe that such particles exist. The Higgs boson is a good example, there is now good reason to think it exists, yes that evidence is somewhat indirect but it is both observable and physical. So the Higgs boson remained a unconfirmable theory until we had actual physical evidence. We have no such evidence for your multiverse.

[seer]

I have repeatedly. Here’s the clue; Craig is an apologist. It suits his agenda for the universe to have had an absolute beginning in order for his creator deity to have done his creatio ex nihilo bit.


Certainly the BVG theorem shows that most "inflationary models of the universe will reach a boundary in the past”– meaning OUR universe probably doesn’t exist infinitely into the past. But Craig rashly interprets this to mean that the entire universe definitely began to exist. But this is not what’s been argued.

That is false Tass and you are bearing false witness. Vilenkin himself said that the greater multiverse needs a "beginning." Those are his words which I linked in this thread to his You Tube talk. Now are there ways around this - possibly, but not from anything that is known or can be proved. And so what if Craig assumes God, you assume no God. Neither assumption can be "proven."

[shunyadragon]

No Suny, if this is the case then no one is compelled to believe that such particles exist. The Higgs boson is a good example, there is now good reason to think it exists, yes that evidence is somewhat indirect but it is both observable and physical. So the Higgs boson remained a unconfirmable theory until we had actual physical evidence. We have no such evidence for your multiverse.

The evidence is indeed completely indirect, not somewhat. There is 'no actual observable physical evidence' that the Higgs Boson exists. I am using your own words as to what the standards of evidence 'must' be.