An Infinite Past?

[shunyadragon]

Yes even scientists are bias.

Phfffffffttt!!!!

Were not talking about bias here. This represents a clear full blown religious agenda, even associating atheists with scientists.

Again, your true motivation and agenda revealed for all to see, despite your repeated denials.

[Tassman]

That is completely false Tass. Did not quote Steinhardt to discredit an eternal past but to show that the multiverse theory has some serious flaws - period. And it is sad, like Shuny, you can not be man enough or honest enough to admit that you were wrong.

The question is why you quote sources that are totally contrary to your world-view and antipathetic to anything other than physical explanations for the material universe? You won't accept the conclusions of any of the physicists you're quoting regardless of their arguments.

Again Tass, It was Steinhardt himself that brings discredit to the multiverse theory, not me and all can read it in context. Both you and Shuny claimed I took the quote out of context - I did not and for that slander you do owe me an apology. And the cyclic model, at least Steinhardt's model, does exclude a multiverse - both can not be correct.

model of the universe is supported by no substantive evidence of any sort. None! Thus it is disingenuous of you to criticize scientific methodology, given that it produces demonstrable results, as compared to theology which doesn't.

That is nonsense Tass, show me the physical evidence for either. And BTW, again, they both can not be true. So Tass, which one is correct? Which one has more physical evidence?

See above.

[seer]

Phfffffffttt!!!!

Were not talking about bias here. This represents a clear full blown religious agenda, even associating atheists with scientists.

Again, your true motivation and agenda revealed for all to see, despite your repeated denials.

Shuny, I'm a theist of course I have a bias, I never claimed otherwise, just as the atheist scientists have a bias. That does not change the fact that you wrongly accused me of taking Steinhardt's quote out of context concerning the multiverse.

[seer]

The question is why you quote sources that are totally contrary to your world-view and antipathetic to anything other than physical explanations for the material universe? You won't accept the conclusions of any of the physicists you're quoting regardless of their arguments.

Take one theory at a time Tass. Steinhardt's point about the multiverse theory being seriously flawed is a powerful objection. And I did not quote him out of context - you both still owe me an apology. And which physicists do you want me to accept? Those who hold to the Multiverse, The Cyclic Model, one of the various String Theories, Shuny's new 4-D Black hole model, etc...?

Indeed. And in due course one will become the dominant theory. The continual testing and tweaking of the current models will ultimately determine which. An example of this process was Big Bang Theory vs Steady State theory, around 70 years ago, wherein the Big Bang hypothesis eventually became the accepted model with the greatest explanatory power. It’s a process that demonstrably works but it takes time.

Yes someday we may actually have good physical evidence for one of these theories, but as of today it is all up in the air. No one has a clue. So you can assume a natural explanation for this universe, I need not.

[seer]

The fact of the matter seer, is that every single cosmological theory to date points either to a multiverse or is eternal and allows for a multiverse. There is no direct physical evidence, and being that other universes, should they exist, are outside of our light cone, there may never be direct physical evidence, but scientists in such cases follow the math and the math in all of these theories points to a multi-verse. The only model that does not point directly to a multi-verse that I can think of is Hawkings Big Bang scenario in which our particular universe of space and time created itself. But even in that scenario, it didn't create itself from out of nothing it created itself form out of the energy vacuum which some mistakingly call nothingness but which in my opinion would be better defined as the Greater Cosmos.

No Jim, that is false, the Borde Guth Vlenkin Theorem - the most popular multiverse theory, is not "past complete" - it doesn't lead to an eternal past. See the link. And so now you believe that the universe created itself - out of nothing? So what triggered that energy vacuum to do what it did? You are getting very close to the Christian doctrine of Ex Nihilo


https://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt...verse%20theory

[shunyadragon]

Shuny, I'm a theist of course I have a bias, I never claimed otherwise, just as the atheist scientists have a bias. That does not change the fact that you wrongly accused me of taking Steinhardt's quote out of context concerning the multiverse.

Steinhardt's criticism of inflation models is intertwinwed with his cyclic model, which also occurs within a possible infinite/eternal in a multiverse. Yes, you are selectively citing Steinhardt for an agenda, because you believe there is no evidence for both models proposed by Vilinkin and Steinhardt, but yet selectively cite them to support your agenda as previously exposed on your own words.

[Tassman]

Take one theory at a time Tass. Steinhardt's point about the multiverse theory being seriously flawed is a powerful objection. And I did not quote him out of context - you both still owe me an apology. And which physicists do you want me to accept? Those who hold to the Multiverse, The Cyclic Model, one of the various String Theories, Shuny's new 4-D Black hole model, etc...?

You selectively cite the likes of Vilenkin and Steinhard to support your unevidenced scenario by attempting to present them and cosmology in general as "People sometimes tell you things like: "Science doesn't know everything." Well, of course science doesn't know everything. But because science doesn't know everything, that doesn't mean science knows nothing. Science knows enough for us to be watched by a few million people now on television, for these lights to be working, for quite extraordinary miracles to have taken place in terms of the harnessing of the physical world and our dim approaches towards understanding it".

Yes someday we may actually have good physical evidence for one of these theories, but as of today it is all up in the air. No one has a clue.

Your hyperbole may be comforting for you but it's wrong. Cosmologists have numerous . It's NOT

So you can assume a natural explanation for this universe, I need not.

I will assume the explanation supported by the best evidence and this is the scientific understanding of the natural universe. There's NO substantiated evidence for a non-natural explanation of the universe.

[seer]

Steinhardt's criticism of inflation models is intertwinwed with his cyclic model, which also occurs within a possible infinite/eternal in a multiverse. Yes, you are selectively citing Steinhardt for an agenda, because you believe there is no evidence for both models proposed by Vilinkin and Steinhardt, but yet selectively cite them to support your agenda as previously exposed on your own words.

What are you taking about Shuny? Steinhardt's model has nothing to do with the multiverse, his oscillating model is one universe that contracts and expands. Not millions of universe that exist in a greater cosmos. And again you lie. I never took anything out of context, and there is still no physical evidence for either model. And finally scientists that are atheist are just as bias as anyone else. They want, no they need, a natural cause for this universe - even if there isn't one.

[seer]

You selectively cite the likes of Vilenkin and Steinhard to support your unevidenced ‘god-did-it’ scenario by attempting to present them and cosmology in general as “all up in the air” and at that "no one has a clue" – as you misleadingly say below. You seem to think that if science can't provide complete explanations then by default God must be the answer.

See this is the problem Tass. I can be much more open minded than you. Yes I believe God created this universe but did He use natural means or supernatural? Scripture doesn't tell us. Did he create other universes, a multiverse, has He been creating universes from eternity past? That is Shuny's position. Scripture is silent on these matters. None of these other possibilities undermine my faith, but you, and atheists in general, need a natural explanation and without such an natural cause your faith is in great danger indeed.

[shunyadragon]

What are you taking about Shuny? Steinhardt's model has nothing to do with the multiverse, his oscillating model is one universe that contracts and expands. Not millions of universe that exist in a greater cosmos. And again you lie. I never took anything out of context, and there is still no physical evidence for either model. And finally scientists that are atheist are just as bias as anyone else. They want, no they need, a natural cause for this universe - even if there isn't one.

Since you do not believe any of it, what is the point of selectively citing scientific research you do not believe there is any evidence for? It does make any sense. No where in Steinhardt's work does he propose that the multiverse is not possible. He criticizes the Inflation models, like Vilenkin's, for lack of evidence and there relationship to possible multiverse in their models. It is the insufficient evidence for these models that Reinhardt objects to and not specifically the multiverse.

Your underlying motivation is showing again when you equate the motivation of scientists with atheism.

[seer]

Since you do not believe any of it, what is the point of selectively citing scientific research you do not believe there is any evidence for? It does make any sense. No where in Steinhardt's work does he propose that the multiverse is not possible. He criticizes the Inflation models, like Vilenkin's, for lack of evidence and there relationship to possible multiverse in their models. It is the insufficient evidence for these models that Reinhardt objects to and not specifically the multiverse.

Shuny either you can't understand the argument or you are being dishonest. Steinhardt is not just attacking the inflation theory but the whole idea of a multiverse. Not that it is impossible but that it would be completely meaningless for making predictions. Try understanding the extended quote I posted. Obviously you don't.

Another source about the finding from the BICEP2 team Steinhardt says:

The common view is that it (inflation theory) is a highly predictive theory. If that was the case and the detection of gravitational waves was the ‘smoking gun’ proof of inflation, one would think that non-detection means that the theory fails. Such is the nature of normal science. Yet some proponents of inflation who celebrated the BICEP2 announcement already insist that the theory is equally valid whether or not gravitational waves are detected. How is this possible?

The answer given by proponents is alarming: the inflationary paradigm is so flexible that it is immune to experimental and observational tests. First, inflation is driven by a hypothetical scalar field, the inflaton, which has properties that can be adjusted to produce effectively any outcome. Second, inflation does not end with a universe with uniform properties, but almost inevitably leads to a multiverse with an infinite number of bubbles, in which the cosmic and physical properties vary from bubble to bubble. The part of the multiverse that we observe corresponds to a piece of just one such bubble. Scanning over all possible bubbles in the multiverse, everything that can physically happen does happen an infinite number of times. No experiment can rule out a theory that allows for all possible outcomes. Hence, the paradigm of inflation is unfalsifiable.

http://www.nature.com/news/big-bang-...bubble-1.15346

Your underlying motivation is showing again when you equate the motivation of scientists with atheism.

Another lie, I did not say that all scientists were atheists, but those who are both want and need a natural explanation, whether one exists or not.

[shunyadragon]

Shuny either you can't understand the argument or you are being dishonest. Steinhardt is not just attacking the inflation theory but the whole idea of a multiverse. Not that it is impossible but that it would be completely meaningless for making predictions. Try understanding the extended quote I posted. Obviously you don't.

Another source about the finding from the BICEP2 team Steinhardt says:



http://www.nature.com/news/big-bang-...bubble-1.15346



Another lie, I did not say that all scientists were atheists,but those who are both want and need a natural explanation, whether one exists or not.

I have no problem with Steinhardt proposing that 'No experiment can rule out a theory that allows for all possible outcomes. Hence, the paradigm of inflation is unfalsifiable.' based on present knowledge , but Strinhardt does not say they make no sense, nor does he say that they are not possible.

Another lie, I did not say you believed all scientists are atheists. Your agenda has become obvious by your previous posts when you associated scientists with atheists. as being the goal of proving our physical existence has only a natural origin. Science through 'Methodological Naturalism as a matter of fact can only deal with natural explanations regardless of the belief of the scientists.

[seer]

I have no problem with Steinhardt proposing that 'No experiment can rule out a theory that allows for all possible outcomes. Hence, the paradigm of inflation is unfalsifiable.' based on present knowledge , but Strinhardt does not say they make no sense, nor does he say that they are not possible.

What makes no sense Shuny is the idea that you can make predictions with with a multiverse model - and his objection would apply to any multiverse model since they all would suffer the same fundamental flaw. And I never said that Steinhardt claimed that the multiverse was impossible - only useless or nonsensical since predictions would be unfalsifiable.

Another lie, I did not say you believed all scientists are atheists. Your agenda has become obvious by your previous posts when you associated scientists with atheists. as being the goal of proving our physical existence has only a natural origin. Science through 'Methodological Naturalism as a matter of fact can only deal with natural explanations regardless of the belief of the scientists.

My agenda is no better or worse than the atheist, scientist or not, who wants and needs a natural reason for this universe. You are blind Shuny, like they can't be or aren't bias. Of course they are - they are human.

[shunyadragon]

What makes no sense Shuny is the idea that you can make predictions with with a multiverse model - and his objection would apply to any multiverse model since they all would suffer the same fundamental flaw. And I never said that Steinhardt claimed that the multiverse was impossible - only useless or nonsensical since predictions would be unfalsifiable.

Highlighted not claimed by Reinhardt. This seer editorializing for a religious agends

My agenda is no better or worse than the atheist, scientist or not, who wants and needs a natural reason for this universe. You are blind Shuny, like they can't be or aren't bias. Of course they are - they are human.

The issue in science is Methodological Naturalism.

[JimL]

No Jim, that is false, the Borde Guth Vlenkin Theorem - the most popular multiverse theory, is not "past complete" - it doesn't lead to an eternal past. See the link. And so now you believe that the universe created itself - out of nothing? So what triggered that energy vacuum to do what it did? You are getting very close to the Christian doctrine of Ex Nihilo


https://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt...verse%20theory

That i believe is because you are confusing the multi-verse notion, or the many worlds that exist according to the theories, with the notion of the Cosmos itself from out of which they emerge. It is the Cosmos that would be eternal, not the many universes which it spawns. Of course the temporal universes, being that they are of one and the same substance as that from which they were formed, would be eternal as well with respect to there cause. Even though the forms that the eternal substance takes are temporal, the eternal substance itself, energy, can niether be created nor destroyed. Its akin to the nature of our own universe, temporal forms within it come into and go out of existence, but the substance out of which they are formed is re-cycled so to speak.