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
See more
See less

Infinity and Kalam

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by seer View Post

    You are wrong Tass, according to Vilenkin the multiverse can not be past eternal - can not be infinite into the past. And he also shots down the cyclical idea.
    You are cherry-picking from your favorite physicist so as to seemingly have him say what you want to believe.

    Conversely, Sir Roger Penrose, the 2020 Nobel Prize winner in physics, claims the universe goes through cycles of death and rebirth. According to him, there have been multiple Big Bangs, with more on the way. The “central idea is that one universe follows another in eternal recurrence on the grandest scale”.


    https://physicsworld.com/a/inside-penroses-universe/

    And, your link is that of Christian apologists totally unsupported by objective evidence. But, then, it's always nice to have one’s biases confirmed.






    “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

    Comment


    • An infinite regression of deaths and re-births.


      Or


      One Infinitely Existing Being.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Tassman View Post

        You are cherry-picking from your favorite physicist so as to seemingly have him say what you want to believe.
        No, I just quoted what he said, here is Vilenkin in context:

        There is another way that the universe might be eternal in the past. It could have cycled through an infinite succession of expansions and contractions. This notion was briefly popular in the 1930s, but was then abandoned because of its apparent conflict with the second law of thermodynamics. The second law requires that entropy should increase in each cycle of cosmic evolution. If the universe had already completed an infinite number of cycles, it would have reached a state of thermal equilibrium, and so a state of maximum entropy. All the energy of ordered motion would have turned into heat, a uniform temperature prevailing throughout.

        We do not find ourselves in such a state.

        The idea of a cyclic universe was recently revived by Paul Steinhardt and Neil Turok.11 They suggested that in each cycle expansion is greater than contraction, so that the volume of the universe is increased. The entropy of the universe we can now observe could be the same as the entropy of some similar region in an earlier cycle; nonetheless, the total entropy of the universe would have increased because the volume of the universe is now greater than it was before. As time goes on, both the entropy and the total volume grow without bounds, and the state of maximum entropy is never reached. There is no maximum entropy.12

        The problem with this scenario is that, on average, the volume of the universe still grows, and thus the BGV theorem can be applied. This leads immediately to the conclusion that a cyclic universe cannot be past-eternal.

        https://inference-review.com/article...f-the-universe
        Conversely, Sir Roger Penrose, the 2020 Nobel Prize winner in physics, claims the universe goes through cycles of death and rebirth. According to him, there have been multiple Big Bangs, with more on the way. The “central idea is that one universe follows another in eternal recurrence on the grandest scale”.



        Where is the actual EVIDENCE for this? How do you test it? Even the author of your link doesn't buy it! Try to fail harder Tass...

        I have to say that the key idea strikes me as not so much crazy as implausible. Nevertheless, I think many people will, like me, be glad to have read this book. Penrose’s prose is wonderfully clear and concise (I admit to envy), and the “intelligent layreaders” who buy his books in such remarkable numbers despite all his equations will be stimulated by his lucid (and largely equation-free) discussion of the second law. Budding relativists will get an excellent introduction to conformal diagrams and much else. And I am sure sceptics will enjoy looking for defects in the arguments.
        Last edited by seer; 12-01-2021, 07:58 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 Post

          [FONT=Calibri][FONT=Verdana][COLOR=black]No, I just quoted what he said, here is Vilenkin in context:
          "Just quoting" what Alexander Vilenkin said? Why not "just quote" what an equally eminent physicist (Sir Roger Penrose ) says - they're both presenting a valid and detailed scientific hypothesis? Could it be that you perceive Vilenkin as providing an an opening for your "god as 'First Cause'" argument, whereas Penrose doesn't? But Vilenkin doesn't either: From your link: Vilenkin (referencing Kalaam) rebuts the premise:

          -the universe began to exist;
          -therefore, the universe has a cause.
          -The second part affirms that the cause must be God.

          "I would now like to take issue with the first part of the argument. Modern physics can describe the emergence of the universe as a physical process that does not require a cause".







          :




          .
          “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Tassman View Post

            "Just quoting" what Alexander Vilenkin said? Why not "just quote" what an equally eminent physicist (Sir Roger Penrose ) says - they're both presenting a valid and detailed scientific hypothesis? Could it be that you perceive Vilenkin as providing an an opening for your "god as 'First Cause'" argument, whereas Penrose doesn't? But Vilenkin doesn't either: From your link: Vilenkin (referencing Kalaam) rebuts the premise:

            -the universe began to exist;
            -therefore, the universe has a cause.
            -The second part affirms that the cause must be God.

            "I would now like to take issue with the first part of the argument. Modern physics can describe the emergence of the universe as a physical process that does not require a cause".

            .
            Good grief, look back at the debate. I brought up Vilenkin's view about the universe coming into being without a cause a number of times. Tass do you believe that the universe can come into being without a cause. From no preexisting matter or space? And your own linked author was not buying Penrose's theory. Never mind that we have no evidence of such a thing. And perhaps no way to test it. And BTW Vilenkin went on in my link.


            An Unaddressable Mystery


            THE ANSWER to the question, “Did the universe have a beginning?” is, “It probably did.” We have no viable models of an eternal universe. The BGV theorem gives us reason to believe that such models simply cannot be constructed.

            When physicists or theologians ask me about the BGV theorem, I am happy to oblige. But my own view is that the theorem does not tell us anything about the existence of God. A deep mystery remains. The laws of physics that describe the quantum creation of the universe also describe its evolution. This seems to suggest that they have some independent existence.

            What exactly this means, we don’t know.

            And why are these laws the ones we have? Why not other laws?

            We have no way to begin to address this mystery.
            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 Post

              Good grief, look back at the debate. I brought up Vilenkin's view about the universe coming into being without a cause a number of times. Tass do you believe that the universe can come into being without a cause. From no preexisting matter or space? And your own linked author was not buying Penrose's theory. Never mind that we have no evidence of such a thing. And perhaps no way to test it. And BTW Vilenkin went on in my link.

              And yet your whole panoply of cherry-picked quotes by Vilenkin comes undone in the link from Vilenkin you yourself provided: " Modern physics can describe the emergence of the universe as a physical process that does not require a cause.".

              https://inference-review.com/article...f-the-universe





              “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Tassman View Post

                And yet your whole panoply of cherry-picked quotes by Vilenkin comes undone in the link from Vilenkin you yourself provided: " Modern physics can describe the emergence of the universe as a physical process that does not require a cause.".

                https://inference-review.com/article...f-the-universe
                Tass don't be dense, we already discussed that claim by Vilenkin in this thread, a number of times so stop! As a matter of fact I even e-mailed him on this point and he got back to me. And he repeated the point that he believes that the universe can pop into being without a cause with no preexisting matter or space, literally this is creation Ex Nihilo. What is necessary are the laws of physics - in the Platonic sense. So Tass do you believe creation Ex Nihilo is possible?
                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 Post

                  Tass don't be dense, we already discussed that claim by Vilenkin in this thread, a number of times so stop! As a matter of fact I even e-mailed him on this point and he got back to me. And he repeated the point that he believes that the universe can pop into being without a cause with no preexisting matter or space, literally this is creation Ex Nihilo. What is necessary are the laws of physics - in the Platonic sense. So Tass do you believe creation Ex Nihilo is possible?
                  But the universe (or universes with regard to the multiverse which Vilenkin also accepts) did NOT pop into being from “nothing” in the philosophical sense of nothing. It arose from the ‘quantum vacuum state’, which contains fleeting electromagnetic waves and particles that pop into and out of the quantum field. Hence, Vilenkin can say: "Modern physics can describe the emergence of the universe as a physical process that does not require a cause."

                  https://inference-review.com/article...f-the-universe

                  No physicists (including Vilenkin) argue for an absolute beginning for our universe(s) from total ‘nothingness’.
                  “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                  Comment


                  • "It arose from the ‘quantum vacuum state’, which contains fleeting electromagnetic waves and particles that pop into and out of the quantum field"

                    Was/is there rationality in the quantum vacuum state?





                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Tassman View Post

                      But the universe (or universes with regard to the multiverse which Vilenkin also accepts) did NOT pop into being from “nothing” in the philosophical sense of nothing. It arose from the ‘quantum vacuum state’, which contains fleeting electromagnetic waves and particles that pop into and out of the quantum field. Hence, Vilenkin can say: "Modern physics can describe the emergence of the universe as a physical process that does not require a cause."
                      Wrong again Tass,

                      1. Yes his and Guth's inflation theory could lead to a multiverse - but as they both show - it can not be past eternal.
                      2. Yes, it is "nothing" - no preexisting space or matter, the only thing required are the laws of physics. He makes that clear in the link.
                      3. If the universe popped out of a preexisting quantum field that would be a CAUSE.
                      4. If this did happen, where did this quantum field exist if there was no SPACE as Vilenkin said?

                      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 Post

                        Wrong again Tass,

                        1. Yes his and Guth's inflation theory could lead to a multiverse - but as they both show - it can not be past eternal.
                        2. Yes, it is "nothing" - no preexisting space or matter, the only thing required are the laws of physics. He makes that clear in the link.
                        3. If the universe popped out of a preexisting quantum field that would be a CAUSE.
                        4. If this did happen, where did this quantum field exist if there was no SPACE as Vilenkin said?
                        The quantum vacuum state, according to most cosmologists (including Vilenkin), preexisted space-time, and therefore its existence does not depend on space time. Hence, as Vilenkin says in your link: "Modern physics can describe the emergence of the universe as a physical process that does not require a cause." It emerges from the ‘quantum vacuum state’, which contains fleeting electromagnetic waves and particles that pop into and out of the quantum field.
                        “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                        Comment





                        • So there is a quantum state and a quantum field. Waves and particles pop into and out (of existence?) of the quantum field.

                          The picture I have here is that this quantum field is the world around us, the visible knowable Universe. It just popped into existence out of the quantum state. Does it ever pop back in? It seems like I heard that before, like it's flickering in and out of existence. So there's 2 "modes" if you will here, the seen and the unseen. A state, that contain waves and particles, and a field. A state and a field...a Yin and Yang.

                          Not that that is the belief I have, but I can kinda see the sense in such a cosmology. At some point though, you will have to face the question of rationality, and where it comes from.

                          Now of course, you could possibly say that irrationality is the Yang of rationality and both give rise to the other. You might get away with some oriental koan here. That "irrational forces brought about rational forces" seems to be exclusively a problem for the western psyche anyway.

                          My point is, Tassmans cosmology here strikes me as very Eastern.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Tassman View Post

                            The quantum vacuum state, according to most cosmologists (including Vilenkin), preexisted space-time, and therefore its existence does not depend on space time. Hence, as Vilenkin says in your link: "Modern physics can describe the emergence of the universe as a physical process that does not require a cause." It emerges from the ‘quantum vacuum state’, which contains fleeting electromagnetic waves and particles that pop into and out of the quantum field.
                            No Tass, no where does Vilenkin say that there was a preexisting quantum field, and if there was where would it exist apart from SPACE? We only have evidence of the quantum world in SPACE. Second. as far as what I read quantum particles do not pop into being without a CAUSE. But Vilenkin makes clear that the universe could have come into being without a CAUSE.
                            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 Post

                              No Tass, no where does Vilenkin say that there was a preexisting quantum field,
                              He said so himself and you quoted him: “he believes that the universe can pop into being without a cause with no preexisting matter or space”. That is, it emerges from the ‘quantum vacuum state’, which contains fleeting electromagnetic waves and particles that randomly pop into and out of the quantum field.

                              and if there was where would it exist apart from SPACE? We only have evidence of the quantum world in SPACE.
                              Not so. The quantum vacuum state, according to most cosmologists (including Vilenkin), preexisted space-time, and therefore its existence does not depend on space time.

                              Second. as far as what I read quantum particles do not pop into being without a CAUSE. But Vilenkin makes clear that the universe could have come into being without a CAUSE.
                              According to present-day understanding of what is called the vacuum state or the quantum vacuum, it is not simply empty space but actually filled with quantum energy and particles that randomly blink in and out of existence for a fleeting moment. These are referred to as quantum fluctuations which resulted in the Big Bang and inflated into our present universe according to Vilenkin.
                              “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                              Comment




                              • An infinite regression of cause and effect is the same as no cause and effect at all. That is, the question "what caused this?", can only ever be answered "the previous cause". There was no "First Cause". Cause necessarily implies Mind, and Tassmans cosmology does not operate with Mind, for there is no Mind. There was no Eternal Mind that caused anything. Nothing was ever Caused...just an infinite spiral of cause and effect, never beginning.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                                161 responses
                                514 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
                                88 responses
                                354 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
                                21 responses
                                133 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X