Originally posted by Leonhard
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Philosophy 201 Guidelines
Cogito ergo sum
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
An Infinite Past?
Collapse
X
-
Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
-
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostThank you for writing a post that doesn't invite fragmentation Sea of Red.
You're wrong to call the BGV theorem speculation, it simple establishes a problem in all eternal inflationary models that have an average Hubble constant larger than zero. Namely that you get ultraviolet runaway problems as you go backwards in time. This isn't speculation, it mathematically proves that this problem will occur in almost all space-times.
Secondly, I do avoid the use of infinities for various reasons, and since a closed spacetime is more elegant and easier to treat when it comes to boundary conditions it looks favorable for those reasons alone. Ignoring here all philosophical problems with infinities. I don't like the mysticism you seem to throw towards the paradoxes that emerge from infinities in mathematics. I am aware of those, and its things like them that you'd typically use to argue that infinite extensive properties don't exist in the universe.
Thirdly, I wouldn't call it speculation that the best supported list of models is the one where time has a definite beginning. Even if quantum gravity models come about there's nothing that really indicates that they would have an infinite past either. It would be an argument from ignorance that because there's stuff out there we don't know about, we don't have evidence that the past is finite. From physics alone, this seems like the only and best option.
And what's with the "not even understanding the barebones essentials of these topics"? Do you mean to say that the theologians discussing these things don't understand General Relativity, or do you mean that things like quantum gravity isn't understood well enough yet to warrant a discussion?
The former is clearly false in some circumstances, the latter is false as well since we do have some tentative models of what a successful quantum gravity would look like and it doesn't appear that it will change the outcome ultimately. This will be assertion on my part until I get home. The weekend after this one I'll be there.
You're tone got a wee bit patronising with these statements.
James
Comment
-
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostThirdly, I wouldn't call it speculation that the best supported list of models is the one where time has a definite beginning. Even if quantum gravity models come about there's nothing that really indicates that they would have an infinite past either. It would be an argument from ignorance that because there's stuff out there we don't know about, we don't have evidence that the past is finite. From physics alone, this seems like the only and best option.
The same problem arises as to what is referred to as 'nothing' in science, and 'nothing' in theology, as in beginnings from nothing. In physics and cosmology this nothing is in reality something, the Quantum World of Quantum gravity, and Quantum zero point, from which things arise and beginnings happen.Last edited by shunyadragon; 09-12-2014, 01:54 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostThese theorems and models propose 'beginnings,' i. e. our universe from a singularity with in a greater context of the cosmos.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostThat is just false Shuny, Vilenkin himself says that Eternal Inflation/multiverse needs a beginning. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXCQelhKJ7ALast edited by shunyadragon; 09-12-2014, 02:04 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostFalse seer, Absolutely nowhere did Vilenkin propose that this was an absolute beginning of everything, To propose the possibility (this only a model and not in any way conclusive) of a beginning of a multiverse does not eliminate the possibility that there are infinite multiverses. IF you can cite Vilenkin as proposing absolute beginnings, please do. You do not accept the evidence for existence of multiverses anyway, so 'Where are you coming from with this meaningless assertion?' You jump around from theorem to theorem cherry picking things that agree with your religious agenda. It is possible that multiverse exist within an infinite Quantum world. Still waiting . . .Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostWhat are you talking about. Vilenkin makes it clear that his theory does require a beginning for the multiverse. It is in the link, he himself, uses the term beginning. He doesn't address infinite multiverses - whatever that means. I mean do you have a credible theory that leads to an eternal past? What is it?
I mean do you have a credible theory that leads to an eternal past? What is it?
By the way Guth proposes that the universe might be infinite - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfeJhzPq3jQLast edited by shunyadragon; 09-12-2014, 06:26 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostThat is just false Shuny, Vilenkin himself says that Eternal Inflation/multiverse needs a beginning. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXCQelhKJ7A
As SoR, in his usual concise way, states: “Even the authors of the [BGV] theorem have stated that it does not prove an absolute beginning of time…The main point of BGV was to show that inflation is not geodesically complete, and thus other physics would be required to explain the beginning of time. This has been suspected for years as Borde and Vilenkin have written many independent papers on that subject, and the theorem proved to be more of an exercise in differential geometry than anything else”.
This is a relatively new field of investigation and physicists have a way to go before the fundamental nature of space/time is well understood by them - let alone by opportunistic apologists like WL Craig.Last edited by Tassman; 09-13-2014, 04:50 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostFalse seer, Absolutely nowhere did Vilenkin propose that this was an absolute beginning of everything, To propose the possibility (this only a model and not in any way conclusive) of a beginning of a multiverse does not eliminate the possibility that there are infinite multiverses. IF you can cite Vilenkin as proposing absolute beginnings, please do. You do not accept the evidence for existence of multiverses anyway, so 'Where are you coming from with this meaningless assertion?' You jump around from theorem to theorem cherry picking things that agree with your religious agenda. It is possible that multiverse exist within an infinite Quantum world. Still waiting . . .
You have cited the following one!Last edited by seer; 09-13-2014, 05:04 AM.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostWell, this is really what the thread is all about isn't it? Vilenkin certainly uses the word “beginning” but he doesn't mean by it what you and some others around here seem to think he means – as several of us have tried to point out.
As SoR, in his usual concise way, states: “Even the authors of the [BGV] theorem have stated that it does not prove an absolute beginning of time…The main point of BGV was to show that inflation is not geodesically complete, and thus other physics would be required to explain the beginning of time. This has been suspected for years as Borde and Vilenkin have written many independent papers on that subject, and the theorem proved to be more of an exercise in differential geometry than anything else”.
This is a relatively new field of investigation and physicists have a way to go before the fundamental nature of space/time is well understood by them - let alone by opportunistic apologists like WL Craig.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostAgain Shuny, you are nuts. I never claimed that any possibility was eliminated. Or that Vilenkin didn't have other "ideas." Only that his multiverse theory required a beginning. And that you can find in the link I posted. So again, if you have any actual evidence for an infinite past please enlighten us all.
Yes I agree, that is a nice idea. But where is the evidence? Like Dr. Carroll mentioned in the debate with Bill Craig there are a number of different models out there that may lead to an infinite past but they all have serious problems.
Actually none of the models and theorems concerning our cosmos can be ethically cited in an argument to conclusively support an infinite and eternal nor finite and temporal cosmos. The ultimate nature of our cosmos is unknown.Last edited by shunyadragon; 09-13-2014, 06:19 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostAgain, and again and again, you are selectively citing physicists and cosmologists to support your religious agenda. The beginnings described in these theorems and models never described anything that is close to the absolute beginning required for theist arguments like Kalam. It is a contradiction to misrepresent Vilenkin concerning the multiverse having a beginning and then assert that his multiverse model supports your claim of a beginning of our physical existence.Last edited by seer; 09-13-2014, 10:56 AM.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostWhere did I ever, ever say that any physicists supported my beliefs? I did say that we have NO EVIDENCE for an eternal physical past. And the fact that Vilenkin's model does not get us there - period.
If it is not to support your religious agenda, why do it?
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostI have no idea what you are saying Tass. First, Vilenkin certainly did mean begin like we use begin.
The fact is his theory does not get us to an eternal past - period. No matter what language you care to use. And Tass, you are free to keep "believing" in an eternal physical past even without a lick of actual physical evidence. Like I always say - never let it be said that I would deny a man his faith.Last edited by shunyadragon; 09-13-2014, 05:14 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostNo he did not!
This only shows that his theorem indicated a beginning, and not an absolute beginning, and as he admits there are other theorems that show an eternal past. He admits that his theorem cannot give us an eternal past, but that of course only applies to his theorem. Guth one of his partners states that our physical existence could be infinite.
You cherry pick theorems and models from different scientists to support your religious agenda. If you genuinely believe there is no evidence it is unethical to do this.
If it is not to support your religious agenda, why do it?Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
|
172 responses
606 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seer
04-15-2024, 11:55 AM
|
Comment