Logic Is An Act Of Love

[bornagainathiest]

Finally!

 

Sorry for the delay, Llwellyn.

Some of my partner's folks made a surprise visit the day before yesterday, so we've had our routine somewhat disrupted... hosting them, feeding them, entertaining them and generally spending time with them.  They're nice enough, but only in small(ish) doses, if you get my drift.  Anyway, to business!

 

 

BAA -- Thank you so much for honoring me with your thoughts on this thread.  There's no way in heck that I would get testy about someone disagreeing with me!  Disagreement is the place where we can test and compare our observations to develop a better one.  The key is honesty and good faith reporting rather than the post-modernist or Christian  "credo quia absurdum."  Good-faith inquirers have an obligation to report true and illuminating answers to the questions that concern them.  Lying is treason.  Don't pretend to be persuaded if you are not persuaded -- I would say the same to a Christian.  It seems there is dishonesty when a Christian would say  "I believe;  take away my unbelief."  Mark 9:24.

 

100% agreement about honesty, good faith and being persuaded.

After much thought, I think I do see what your position is and so I do see the value of it, L.  However, when I take the notion (belief) that 'human belief comes first' and try and square it with the points I raised in post # 20, I find myself falling down a bottomless (and recursive) rabbit hole!  Science and the data (two beliefs) tell me that we live in an infinite universe.  (Another belief)  Infinity destroys meaning.  (Another belief)  So I have to apply that belief (meaninglessness) to the notion that human belief comes first, rendering the notion itself - meaningless. (Yet another belief)

 

So I find myself stymied.

To do justice to my science-based belief in ultimate meaninglessness I must deem all things meaningless.  Even the belief that humans cannot escape from having beliefs must come under this.  Yet that position is, in itself, a belief.  As were the steps I took to arrive at my conclusion of ultimate meaninglessness.  And so it goes around and around... ad infinitum until ad nauseaum is the result!  

 

But there may be an escape hatch!  

See below "Four." " No, Three."

 

I'm pretty much resigned to the thought that I'm wrong.  Disillusioned talks about one test of falsity is that we can know that something is false when it leads to contradictions.  I actually think that truth will also lead to contradictions.  Every truth will result in contradictions -- because neither the human nor the universe is rational.  Logic is a regulative leap into an irrational universe.  As Charles Peirce said -- "One bold saltus landed me in a garden of fruitful and beautiful suggestions."  The best kinds of truth are relative equilibria that butcher the fewest number of other truths.  Since contradiction there must be, the victory to be scientifically acknowledged as "proven" is that of the more inclusive side--of the side which establishes a truth while butchering the fewest number of other truths.  Am I wrong?  Yes I am.  You talk about an infinite universe -- this is the consequence of an infinite universe.

 

I think that the greatest weakness in my point of view is that it invites the thought that somehow what we believe has an effect on the causal stimulus of that belief.  I agree with you that it doesn't.  I can't bend a spoon with my mind.  But nevertheless my knowledge is a two-way causal relationship.  The way in which it is real to me is determined by the way that I am real.  The way in which the spoon is real is that it is hard and does not bend.  Maybe this proves that the spoon is unbendable -- or maybe it proves that I am unbendable?  Neither you nor I have ever had an observation that was not a human observation.  Maybe there are two causes to every human observation?  --Take away either and what we have heretofore called the real goes away.  And if an alien awareness later kindles in this universe or at some completely different intersection, the real as we've known it will never be recovered.

 

Thanks for clarifying your position on causal stimulus, L.

This was what was worrying me when I wrote my initial response to you, on the 15th.  Matthew 17 : 20 (a mustard seed's worth of faith can move a mountain) is a verse I've heard some Christians use to infer/imply/suggest that the Holy Spirit enables them to enjoy a two-way causal relationship with reality.  Their beliefs about it actually bending it to their will - providing their will is in accordance with God's will.    The other worrying thing being the Christian usage of 'across-the-board subjectivity' to deny that logic, rationality and reason are viable tools to discover how reality works and what it actually is.  So your above paragraph sets my mind at ease on these matters.

 

I actually like the idea of the infinite universe of absolute chance.  In another thread, I used John Dewey's phrase "the universe with the lid off."  I don't think the world is the way that we see it.  I agree with you that human meaning is a very small thing in this environment.  Should I think this is a meaningless universe?  How can I when I don't?  Let us not pretend to doubt what we do not doubt.  My epistemological view is a kind of naive realism -- everything is exactly how we know it to be.  Including the speeding truck, and the world of value.  I'm pretty sure that you can find some direct contradictions in this paragraph.  That's when I quote Walt Whitman:   "Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself.  I am large, I contain multitudes."

 

 

 

Ok, now for that escape hatch.

 

You wrote, " Should I think this is a meaningless universe?  How can I when I don't?  Let us not pretend to doubt what we do not doubt."

Well, it just so happens, that while I conclude that the universe is meaningless - I cannot live that way.  When you stare unblinkingly into the abyss, the abyss stares back into you.  That way surely lies madness!

 

So what am I am to do?  How can I be honest to myself and the conclusion I draw about reality, yet live in way that doesn't drive me mad?

Thankfully, after I'd come up with an escape plan of my own making, I came across some internet articles that revealed how cosmologists and theoretical physicists are on the trail of a scientific escape plan of their own.  They don't have it yet, but their efforts seem to be along the same lines as my own - albeit much more sophisticated and rigorous.

 

So then, first up is my escape plan.

 

ALL of astronomy, astrophysics and cosmology is based upon what we know about past events - not about what we know now.  The speed of light (c) restricts us to seeing the Moon as it was 1.25 seconds ago, the Sun as it was 8 minutes ago and the nearest star, as it was in mid 2011.  As so on, all the way back to the edge of the observable universe, which we see as it was, about 13 billion years ago.  Therefore, the finite speed of c will always prevent me from gaining any direct knowledge about any of my doppelgangers, zillions upon zillions of light years away.

 

Yes, I infer that they must exist and that my belief that I am a unique person must be an illusion.

I also infer that my belief in my own free will must be an illusion too.  That all the beliefs it takes for me to be me are... illusory.  But to avoid the dehumanizing and self-destructive consequences of this conclusion, I use a cut-off mechanism to restore my humanity.  Here is where c comes in.  

 

The limited speed of c tells me that I am the only me that I will ever have any direct knowledge of.

Therefore, even though I infer that an infinity of other me's must exist - I will never meet them.  They are forever causally disconnected from me.  So the awful consequence of my act of inference is moderated by this cut-off mechanism - allowing me to live as if I am the only me that exists.  

 

The cosmological escape plan.

Scientists are all too aware of the problems a truly infinite universe presents to the discipline of science.  They've been grappling with it for years and in the trade it's known as, 'The Measure Problem'.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measure_problem_(cosmology)

 

https://www.quantamagazine.org/20141103-in-a-multiverse-what-are-the-odds/

 

They are seeking ways to introduce a viable cosmological cut-off mechanism, to allow them to make statistical sense of the universe.

.

.

.

Now, my question to you L, is this.

Do you think I'm ducking the issue by using this (arbitrary?) cut-off mechanism or is this a valid approach, because other people, equally committed to discovering the truth have decided to go with such an approach too?

I ask because I agree with you.  Lying is treason.  Lying to one's self is just as much treason as any other kind of lies.

 

Please critique this message and be merciless with it.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

 

 

[disillusioned]

This may or may not be relevant, but I think that when we are asking questions about whether or not the universe is meaningless, we also need to ask "meaningless to whom?" My answer to this question is that the universe cannot be meaningless, because, if nothing else, it means a great deal to me. This is true irrespective of whether it is an illusion or not. It is also true irrespective of whether Christianity is true. It's the best answer I have, and the only one I need.

[Llwellyn]

I don't think there is much risk of concluding that the universe is meaningless or of going mad.  I think that humans are animals, and no animal has to be persuaded to attend to its own concerns.  You say that you have drawn a conclusion about reality, but I say that humans are basically animals of action rather than animals of thought.  You have a bunch of habits and actions which are real to you and go way beyond "the conclusion you draw about reality."  You had action before you had conclusions, and your conclusions are not going to stop your action.  I just don't believe that free will is an illusion, and I do believe that you are unique.  Chance is at play in the universe, which means that you are free and you are unique.  Chance is another word for freedom, for the view that things can go this way or that way.  Freedom is the same thing as chance.  I think it is wrong to conjecture that an infinity of other "yous" exist.  If the world is infinite, it is infinitely variated rather than infinitely repeated.

 

It seems that a tiny flow of chance feeds into a deep reservoir of law, and there is a chance outflow as well.  The inflow can sometimes be greater than the outflow, and the reservoir can grow or shrink.  The regularity of the universe is the probabilistic outcome of large sample sizes.  If the reservoir is growing, what it would mean is that the universe is forming a more regular habit.  Chance itself is the cause of this principle of generalization, or tendency to form habits, which has produced all regularities.  Human life is integrated into this broad reservoir, and the earth is solid to us because we have integrated ourselves into that space where a solid earth is useful to us.  Our kindling erupts and is sustained in this melieu.   Every thing we acknowledge has some special use to us in some time and place.  If Yahweh's hellfire exists, it can arrive as welcome to us as a razor-blade sharp hatchet in a thicket.  Life swims in that flowing, changing reservoir.  From the living, adapting, perspective, it won't feel like the vortex is departing from us, or we are drowning in it, because we will move with it, swimming on the surface.

 

It seems that Yeats loses hope to continue swimming when he writes "THE SECOND COMING."  For us as ex-christians, we are no longer vexed to nightmare by the rocking cradle, and the rough beast is also absent, not to be born.  Or, you could say that we are the rough beast born in Bethlehem.  There is no revelation at hand, no Second Coming, just reconstructive growth at the center:

 

    Turning and turning in the widening gyre

    The falcon cannot hear the falconer;

    Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;

    Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,

    The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere

    The ceremony of innocence is drowned;

    The best lack all conviction, while the worst

    Are full of passionate intensity.

 

    Surely some revelation is at hand;

    Surely the Second Coming is at hand.

    The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out

    When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi

    Troubles my sight: a waste of desert sand;

    A shape with lion body and the head of a man,

    A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,

    Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it

    Wind shadows of the indignant desert birds.

 

    The darkness drops again but now I know

    That twenty centuries of stony sleep

    Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,

    And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,

    Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

[bornagainathiest]

Thank you for your input on this, guys.

 

Disillusioned,

The universe also means a great deal to me.  But I am persuaded that this meaning is a purely local phenomenon and not a global one.  In cosmology, whatever occurs within the observable universe is considered to be local.   A global cosmological view one that is multiverse-wide.  So Inflationary theory is both local and global.  It is local, explaining much of what we see happening within the observable universe.  It is also  global, extending itself by logical inference to regions beyond our visual limit.  

 

Therefore, whatever meaning I see in the universe is entirely valid for me - but only on a local scale.

The moment I switch to a global view I'm constrained by logic, by math and by indirect evidence to concede that there are an infinite number of BAA's in dialog with an infinite number of Disillusioned's and Llwellyn's in an infinite number of locations.  The sense of individuality that we enjoy is therefore a purely local effect (caused by the finite speed of light) which must change in a global overview.  So while there can be local individuality, local meaning and local free will, globally these concepts are severely challenged, if not eliminated. 

 

Hence my question about the validity of this escape plan - the cut-off that divides reality into the local and the global.

So, of course the universe cannot be locally meaningless to you.  And it means a great deal to you, in a local sense.  And this is locally true irrespective of the global overview.  And in local terms, this best answer is the only one you need.  Please do let me know if you think my re-wording of your reply is viable, D.  I value your judgement.  Thanks.

.

.

.

Llwellyn,

 

Since you value honesty, I mustn't pull any punches here.

I'm sorry, but in terms of cosmological science, you are dead wrong.  An infinite universe is not considered to be infinitely variated.  That's because cosmology operates using a number of basic assumptions, one of which is that laws of nature do not permit anything to happen.  They only permit what is possible to happen.  In the simplest models of Inflationary theory, the laws that hold good within the local arena of the observable universe are assumed to also hold good everywhere else, across the global overview of the entire multiverse.

 

Ok, we cannot ever know that this is so.  

But the foundational scientific principle of Parsimony requires us to go with the simplest possible explanation.  This therefore constrains us to take the laws that operate within the local, observable universe and extend them infinitely beyond that limit.  Since these laws permit a finite number of things to happen in a finite number of ways, in a wider and infinite multiverse, the finite MUST repeat itself... infinitely often.  If an infinite variety of events could occur, then in an infinite universe,they would do so only once.  But since a finite variety is all that cosmological science will permit, then we are required to conclude that infinite variety is not permitted, inevitably leading to infinite replication of everything.

 

Here is something from John D. Barrow's, 'The Infinite Book : A Short Guide to the Boundless, Timeless and Endless'

 

"Imagine living in a universe where nothing is original. Everything is a fake. No ideas are ever new. There is no novelty, no originality. Nothing is ever done for the first time and nothing will ever be done for the last time. Nothing is unique. Everyone possesses not just one double but an unlimited number of them.
This unusual state of affairs exists if the universe is infinite in spatial extent (volume) and the probability that life can develop is not equal to zero. It occurs because of the remarkable way in which infinity is quite different from any large finite number, no matter how large the number might be.
In a universe of infinite size, anything that has a non-zero probability of occurring must occur infinitely often. Thus at any instant of time—for example, the present moment—there must be an infinite number of identical copies of each of us doing precisely what each of us is now doing. There are also infinite numbers of identical copies of each one of us doing something other than what we are doing at this moment. Indeed, an infinite number of copies of each of us could be found at this moment doing anything that it was possible for us to do with a non-zero probability at this moment.
It is widely believed that the replication paradox was first discussed explicitly by the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche in 'The Will to Strength' (1886). He realises that

'the universe must go through a calculable number of combinations in the great game of chance which constitutes its existence … In infinity, at some moment or other, every possible combination must once have been realized; not only this, but it must also have been realized an infinite number of times.'
…
The spatial replication paradox has all sorts of odd consequences aside from the psychological unease it creates. We believe that the evolution of life is possible with non-zero probability because it has happened on Earth by natural means. Hence, in an infinite universe there must exist an infinite number of living civilisations. Within them will exist copies of ourselves of all possible ages. When each of us dies, there will always exist elsewhere an infinite number of copies of ourselves, possessing all the same memories and experiences of our past lives but who will live on to the future. This succession will continue indefinitely into the future and so in some sense each of us 'lives' forever." 

 

I don't wish to rain on your parade L, but I do ask you to consider the feasibility of my idea of dividing reality into the local and the global.

With Disillusion's pragmatic argument helping us reconcile the local and the global.  The local is all that we can ever have and is all that we will ever need.  The local universe cannot be meaningless to us.  It means a great deal to us.  And this is true for us, irrespective of the global overview.  And this best answer is really, the only one we need.  

 

Does that work for you?

 

I value your opinion, so please do as I've asked Disillusioned and give me your considered judgement on this.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[disillusioned]

BAA, I think we are largely in agreement here. Locally speaking, the universe cannot be meaningless to any of us. But I think that this can be taken one step further. Since each of our perspectives is necessarily the perspective of an individual constrained by where and when we find ourselves in the universe, our perspective can only ever be local. Hence we can wax poetic about global perspectives, and can contend that they are, at least in some sense, theoretically possible, but they can never, strictly speaking, be our perspective. We are forever bound by the fact that we are merely human. This is where we find ourselves, and this is where we look for meaning.

 

In other words, when I say that questions of the meaninglessness of the universe require us to ask "meaningless to whom?", I am not merely restricting myself to the local scale. I would contend that the statement "the universe is meaningless on a global scale" presupposes a being which can actually consider the meaning of the universe on a global scale. None of us can do this. We are constrained by our position in the universe. Hence, to contend that the universe is meaningless on a global scale is to contend that there exists a being who transcends the universe. A God, if you will. Such a being may or may not exist. I do not believe that such a being does exist, but this entails that I do not believe that the universe is meaningless to that being. Therefore, I cannot believe that the universe is meaningless to anyone on a global scale. But if it is not meaningless to anyone, then why say that it is meaningless? It is, after all, meaningful to me. Perhaps this is all that there is.

 

I need to be a little bit careful here so that I don't leave you with the impression that I don't think we can attempt to study what the universe might be like on a global scale. We can extrapolate from our local perspective, and make predictions about what we think the universe as a whole is like. But our predictions remain based in models that are formed from our local observations. Moreover, when we test our predictions, the data that we gather is gleaned from more local observations. There is no way around this. No matter how hard we try for a global perspective, we cannot be anywhere but here, and now. So I think that Llwellyn's assertion that we are animals who attend primarily to our own concerns is very much to the point. Thus, I don't waste much time worrying that the universe might be meaningless because, from my perspective (which is, after all, the only one I have), it isn't.

[Llwellyn]

 cosmology operates using a number of basic assumptions, one of which is that laws of nature do not permit anything to happen.  They only permit what is possible to happen.  In the simplest models of Inflationary theory, the laws that hold good within the local arena of the observable universe are assumed to also hold good everywhere else, across the global overview of the entire multiverse.

 

There is no need to attempt to divide reality into the local and the global, to use a cut-off mechanism to restore humanity.  This is because science is an accomplishment of the the natural competence of human being -- and that extension provides its own "cut-off."  There is no need to arbitrarily draw a line between the local and the global.  Even if there was a "God's Eye" view, that view would itself simply be one view of many views.  Our science does not regulate the rest of the vast field.  Beyond science, it may be true that anything is possible.  Maybe that is where you and I disagree.  I don't think that our logic -- our assumptions, our science -- are supernatural.

 

Logic, even the law of noncontradiction, is an application of human intelligence.  Science is an action that an intelligent ape performs.  Logic has an imperishable use in human life, but that use is not to make us theoretically acquainted with the essential nature of reality.  I find no good warrant for even suspecting the existence of a science that is different from a science of a sentient awareness.  All problems are at bottom problems of conduct.  All judgments are, implicitly, judgments of value.   And, as there can be ultimately no valid distinction of theoretical and practical, so there can be no final separation of questions of truth of any kind from questions of the justifiable ends of action. 

 

[bornagainathiest]

BAA, I think we are largely in agreement here. Locally speaking, the universe cannot be meaningless to any of us. But I think that this can be taken one step further. Since each of our perspectives is necessarily the perspective of an individual constrained by where and when we find ourselves in the universe, our perspective can only ever be local. Hence we can wax poetic about global perspectives, and can contend that they are, at least in some sense, theoretically possible, but they can never, strictly speaking, be our perspective. We are forever bound by the fact that we are merely human. This is where we find ourselves, and this is where we look for meaning.

 

In other words, when I say that questions of the meaninglessness of the universe require us to ask "meaningless to whom?", I am not merely restricting myself to the local scale. I would contend that the statement "the universe is meaningless on a global scale" presupposes a being which can actually consider the meaning of the universe on a global scale. None of us can do this. We are constrained by our position in the universe. Hence, to contend that the universe is meaningless on a global scale is to contend that there exists a being who transcends the universe. A God, if you will. Such a being may or may not exist. I do not believe that such a being does exist, but this entails that I do not believe that the universe is meaningless to that being. Therefore, I cannot believe that the universe is meaningless to anyone on a global scale. But if it is not meaningless to anyone, then why say that it is meaningless? It is, after all, meaningful to me. Perhaps this is all that there is.

 

I need to be a little bit careful here so that I don't leave you with the impression that I don't think we can attempt to study what the universe might be like on a global scale. We can extrapolate from our local perspective, and make predictions about what we think the universe as a whole is like. But our predictions remain based in models that are formed from our local observations. Moreover, when we test our predictions, the data that we gather is gleaned from more local observations. There is no way around this. No matter how hard we try for a global perspective, we cannot be anywhere but here, and now. So I think that Llwellyn's assertion that we are animals who attend primarily to our own concerns is very much to the point. Thus, I don't waste much time worrying that the universe might be meaningless because, from my perspective (which is, after all, the only one I have), it isn't.

 

Yes, Disllusioned.

 

You and I are largely in agreement, but I think that Llwellyn and I fundamentally disagree about the role of human consciousness.

I take the view that human consciousness is only possible because a pre-existing external reality permitted it to evolve and exist.  Which agrees with classical cause-and-effect.  External reality is the cause and our consciousness is the effect.  (Btw, quite how quantum physics fits into the scheme of things, I don't know!)   

 

But if I read her right, any external reality is only real to us, because of our consciousness.   Which reads to me that for her, consciousness is the cause and reality it's effect.  I just can't see a way out of this impasse.  Umm... sorry if I'm wrong here, L.   Can you throw some light on where you stand re: causality and consciousness please?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[Llwellyn]

human consciousness is only possible because a pre-existing external reality permitted it to evolve and exist. 

 

The law of cause-and-effect is real, and is scientifically proven.   Scientific laws of nature are fitting -- a person can calculate probabilities, and can make predictions that satisfy.

 

But the law of causality, like the law of the excluded middle, has its extent and limit.  We don't believe in the "block universe" -- the idea that the state of the universe at one time determines the state at all other times.  Instead we know that there are effects without causes -- which is what we mean by chance.  There are things which are effects without a cause -- e.g. the universe itself, biological life, human awareness.  Darwin's evolutionary view opposes the idea that the variety of everything in the world was implicit from the beginning of time.  This diversification does not antedate all time.  The diversity does not precede its expression.  Law applies to everything except pure originality itself.  This is where Plato was wrong and Darwin was right.

 

Reality exists at the intersection of absolute chance and human awareness.  The laws of nature are the calcified build-up of chance as humans, themselves part of that uncaused result of chance, have through evolution, experienced adaptation to that chance.  I know this sentence is written obscurely, and I may try to write it again on this thread in response to objections, but it seems to make sense.  Chance must be the origin of all law and all awareness.  We find that we are surprised by recalcitrant experience, which, after it is no longer a surprise, is what we call the regularity of law.  We are an evolutionary product, and being what we are, we prove that the entire universe and everything in it is an evolutionary product.

[bornagainathiest]

 

human consciousness is only possible because a pre-existing external reality permitted it to evolve and exist. 

 

The law of cause-and-effect is real, and is scientifically proven.   Scientific laws of nature are fitting -- a person can calculate probabilities, and can make predictions that satisfy.

 

But the law of causality, like the law of the excluded middle, has its extent and limit.  We don't believe in the "block universe" -- the idea that the state of the universe at one time determines the state at all other times.  Instead we know that there are effects without causes -- which is what we mean by chance.  There are things which are effects without a cause -- e.g. the universe itself, biological life, human awareness.  Darwin's evolutionary view opposes the idea that the variety of everything in the world was implicit from the beginning of time.  This diversification does not antedate all time.  The diversity does not precede its expression.  Law applies to everything except pure originality itself.  This is where Plato was wrong and Darwin was right.

 

Reality exists at the intersection of absolute chance and human awareness.  The laws of nature are the calcified build-up of chance as humans, themselves part of that uncaused result of chance, have through evolution, experienced adaptation to that chance.  I know this sentence is written obscurely, and I may try to write it again on this thread in response to objections, but it seems to make sense.  Chance must be the origin of all law and all awareness.  We find that we are surprised by recalcitrant experience, which, after it is no longer a surprise, is what we call the regularity of law.  We are an evolutionary product, and being what we are, we prove that the entire universe and everything in it is an evolutionary product.

 

 

Yes, write again please L.

 

Human awareness depends on biological life and this depends causality.  I don't see how you can say these things are a-causal.  Evolution is defined by the potential of the universe and this potential is governed by universal laws.  Definition of these laws (unless we go with some kind of mysticism) must follow the ground rules of cosmology, which agree with cause-and-effect, which you agree is scientifically valid (not proven).  I don't see how you can escape your own definitions, L.

 

Yes, the state of the universe at one time determines the state of all other times and places

That's what an infinitely-repeating multiverse is.  Endless repetition and not endless variety. It's the inevitable outcome of the same rules that you say confirm cause-and-effect.  You can't hold to those rules in one breath and then not hold to them in another.  They apply or they don't apply. Which is it?

[disillusioned]

I think it is important to point out that there is a difference between acknowledging the validity of causality and taking a completely deterministic view of the universe. Human consciousness may be merely an illusion, as may free will. But they also may not be. If consciousness is not illusory, then one can take the view that while our circumstances are determined by antecedent events, what we choose to do in light of those circumstances remains up to us. Closer analyses of precisely how it remains up to us may reveal that free will is, at bottom, an expression of random chance. By analogy, if I go to the bank and withdraw all of my money in quarters, the number of quarters I receive is completely determined by prior events in my life (how much money I have earned versus how much I have spent), but if I take all the quarters up to the roof of my house and throw them to the ground, chance determines how many will come up heads. Furthermore, which coins will land as heads and which will land as tails is not determined by prior events in my life. Neither is it determined by the state of the universe at some prior point in time.

 

Much of modern physics (and, indeed, science in general) is statistical in nature. It seems to me that what this entails is that if we wind back the tape, events will never quite play out the same way twice. This is also true of biological evolution. The initial conditions matter, but chance also has its part to play. In other words, I think it is true that human consciousness exists only because a pre-existing external reality permitted it to evolve and exist, but I also think it is true that chance has played a vital role in allowing consciousness to arise.

[Llwellyn]

 Evolution is defined by the potential of the universe and this potential is governed by universal laws.  ...  the state of the universe at one time determines the state of all other times and places

 

I say this to you in love -- I don't think what you are describing is the modern theory of evolution.  It is more akin to theistic evolution where life unfolds according to an antecedent order that underpins the universe.  Have you not, in your own way, now handed Christians a gift?  Your science assumes an ineliminable invariance.  Your science presupposes antecedent potentiality which your science cannot account for.  Are you not operating under the belief of God by another name?  The Bible simply names it as God:  "Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?  Tell me, if you understand.  Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know!  Who stretched a measuring line across it?  On what were its footings set, or who laid its cornerstone, while the morning stars sang together and all the angels shouted for joy?"  Job 38:4-7.  

 

I am not a physicist, but my impression is that modern physics leaves room open for pure, unlimited, undefined, and unregulated chance.  -- Chance that disregards all laws, including the laws of causality, noncontradiction, and identity.  -- Chance that is itself the issue of all law.  Again, I say this to you in love -- I don't think that cutting edge physics accepts the "block universe" and limits on possibility.  What you are describing appears to be the classical 19th century dogma of determinism.  The history of science has not been logic;  it has been experience.  Here is a concluding quote from a modern physicist:  "the future of the universe is not completely determined by the laws of science, and its present state."  

 

Not being a physicist myself, I will not try to use the language of "black holes" and "quantum behavior."  But, being a human, I will use the language of life, freedom, chance, logic, and value.  What is my conjecture?  That life is driven from behind and not by any potentiality of any name.  Reality is an extraordinary form of bootstrapping.  Our environment is not created by us.  Chance, as our milieu, is not constituted or constructed by the cognizing mind.  But the law of causality, like religion, is a human thing that we do in an environment without a god or a quasi-deity.

 

http://www.hawking.org.uk/does-god-play-dice.html

[bornagainathiest]

 

 Evolution is defined by the potential of the universe and this potential is governed by universal laws.  ...  the state of the universe at one time determines the state of all other times and places

 

I say this to you in love -- I don't think what you are describing is the modern theory of evolution.  It is more akin to theistic evolution where life unfolds according to an antecedent order that underpins the universe.  Have you not, in your own way, now handed Christians a gift?  Your science assumes an ineliminable invariance.  Your science presupposes antecedent potentiality which your science cannot account for.  Are you not operating under the belief of God by another name?  The Bible simply names it as God:  "Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?  Tell me, if you understand.  Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know!  Who stretched a measuring line across it?  On what were its footings set, or who laid its cornerstone, while the morning stars sang together and all the angels shouted for joy?"  Job 38:4-7.  

 

I am not a physicist, but my impression is that modern physics leaves room open for pure, unlimited, undefined, and unregulated chance.  -- Chance that disregards all laws, including the laws of causality, noncontradiction, and identity.  -- Chance that is itself the issue of all law.  Again, I say this to you in love -- I don't think that cutting edge physics accepts the "block universe" and limits on possibility.  What you are describing appears to be the classical 19th century dogma of determinism.  

 

But how can I be doing that, L..?

Barrow is a theoretical physicist, as is Alan Guth and many others who ascribe to the validity of a repeating multiverse.  They are thoroughly aware of determinism and it plays no part Inflationary theory and multiversal theory.  The infinitely replication paradox is the inevtiable outcome of modern, indeterminate physics, not classical, 19th century physics.  They are the ones advocating ineliminable invariance.

 

Please check out this link and tell me if this sounds like 19th century determinism.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractal_cosmology Fractals are self-repeating patterns that never end.  Infinite in extent, but finite in their repeated expression.

 

The history of science has not been logic;  it has been experience.  Here is a concluding quote from a modern physicist:  "the future of the universe is not completely determined by the laws of science, and its present state."  

 

Not being a physicist myself, I will not try to use the language of "black holes" and "quantum behavior."  But, being a human, I will use the language of life, freedom, chance, logic, and value.  What is my conjecture?  That life is driven from behind and not by any potentiality of any name.  Reality is an extraordinary form of bootstrapping.  Our environment is not created by us.  Chance, as our milieu, is not constituted or constructed by the cognizing mind.  But the law of causality, like religion, is a human thing that we do in an environment without a god or a quasi-deity.

 

http://www.hawking.org.uk/does-god-play-dice.html

 

 

I shall give this more thought.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[bornagainathiest]

After more thought...

 

As I see it, there is a fundamental misunderstanding abroad in this thread.  

 

(Please note that I do not claim to be in the right.  I just observe that something is amiss.  The theoretical physicists putting forward the notion of infinitely repeating multiverses are possibly the least likely people to be using classical determinism.  It's their job to understand and work with indeterminate systems, to take quantum indeterminacy into account in their calculations and to factor the indeterminate into the models they build.  If they're advocating infinitely repeating multiverses, then I strongly doubt they're doing so on the back of classical determinism.)

 

Perhaps some questions about a simple system will help?

 

Does a hydrogen atom have totally unfettered freedom to behave/interact in an infinite variety of ways?

 

If the answer is Yes, then please say why Thermodynamics and the Conservation of Energy do not apply to it.

 

If the answer is No and these things do apply to that atom, then it can only behave/interact in a finite number of ways.

 

And in a universe of infinite extent, any finite system (at any scale) must repeat itself infinitely often.

.

.

.

I posit that the fundamental misunderstanding abroad in this thread has to do with treating indeterminate systems as infinitely free ones.

 

My understanding is that indeterminacy does not equal infinite freedom.

 

But I await the input of my peers on these matters.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

 

[disillusioned]

I think that there are a few misunderstandings going on here.

 

By all means, let’s consider a hydrogen atom. I’m not quite sure what is meant by your question about interaction though. A hydrogen atom is a fairly simple system, consisting of one proton and one electron. We know how these particles tend to interact. The atom can be in stable or unstable energy states. The electron may also be “stripped” from the atom, leaving it as a single proton. If this happens, then the electron and proton are free to do basically anything (subject, of course, to the laws of physics). So if we are asking how a hydrogen atom can interact with the other particles in the universe, and there are an infinite number of particles in the universe, then the hydrogen atom can interact with these particles in an infinite number of ways (either as an entire atom, or as its constituent parts). Of course, if we restrict ourselves to considering the way that the proton and electron which make up the hydrogen atom interact solely with each other, then it seems fairly obvious that they can interact in only a finite number of ways.

 

The way I see it, though, there is an issue inherent with the conclusion of an infinite universe/multiverse. I have argued in previous threads that claims about the multiverse must be taken with a giant grain of salt because they are not, at least as of yet, scientifically testable. (My opinion is that they will never be properly testable, but I could be wrong about this.) We can only observe the observable universe, and the observable universe is finite. Moreover, I’m not sure that our reason is even suited to the question of the multiverse. Our reason is, after all, a product of our evolution here, in this corner of the universe. Our perspective is, therefore, necessarily local. This is where I think Llwellyn and I agree. I don’t think that there is anything special about our reason. It just seems to work. What this means is that this is all that we know we have: the observable universe. The existence of anything else must be assumed. It cannot be a conclusion. To treat the existence of an infinite multiverse as a conclusion is to claim that we have gained a global perspective from purely local data, using purely local tools. I think that such a conclusion is either mistaken, or intellectually dishonest.

 

In other words, although we can assume that there is an infinite multiverse, I’m not sure what useful work this assumption does. This means that I’m extremely leery of this assumption. I find that I’m able to do just fine without it. And furthermore, if the assumption of an infinite multiverse is dropped, then many of the problems which have been raised in this thread vanish along with it. In this way, the multiverse assumption is somewhat like the God assumption. It is permissible, but it isn’t terribly helpful. And we may find that we can do better without it.

[Llwellyn]

please say why Thermodynamics and the Conservation of Energy do not apply

 

The following is an interpretation of the chemist Charles Peirce's thinking:

 

What we call scientific law is the accretion of pure chance.  Thus there is not a "yes or no" answer to the question you posed.  Either answer will obscure more than it illuminates.  The laws of thermodynamics are proven, but not certain.  As disillusioned pointed out, explanation of natural phenomena is probabilistic.  The interaction of a hydrogen atom conforms neither to God nor scientific law.  It seems to me that the alternative to dogmatic transcendentals of the supernatural kind or the scientific kind is this.  Chance is the uncaused cause.  Since an element of pure originality mixes with law everywhere, the laws themselves are stable but subject to evolution.  They are stable as experienced -- that is to say, they are concrete under applications of adapted human purposes of the broadest kind.

 

The variation of life and the cosmos points to this chance.  If the universe were governed by immutable law there could be no change as to produce an uncompensated increment in the elements of a situation.  It is this wildness which is the nub of reality and awareness.  It is this unlimited wildness that allows endless fruitful inquiry.  Inquiry into a defined fractal pattern would come to an end, no matter how elaborate the definition.  That's not to say that there are not natural phenomena that can't be fruitfully proven to be fractals. But, the interaction of the hydrogen atom is not on lockdown, either by a God, or by anything else.  Charles Peirce uses the word "variescence" to refer to the expression of diversity resulting from a "certain swerving of the facts from any definite formula":

 

"Conformity to law exists only within a limited range of events and even there is not perfect, for an element of pure spontaneity or lawless originality mingles, or at least must be supposed to mingle, with law everywhere. Moreover, conformity with law is a fact requiring to be explained; and since Law in general cannot be explained by any law in particular, the explanation must consist in showing how law is developed out of pure chance, irregularity, and indeterminacy."

 

[bornagainathiest]

Thanks for the thoughtful response, Disillusioned.

There is a lot of ground to cover here and my time is at a premium today, so I'll deal with what I can deal with, as the opportunities present themselves.

.

.

.

To Llwellyn...

Many thanks for your fascinating reply.  I will try to do it justice, but that may take a while and may be somewhat episodic.  As always, your patience in these matters is appreciated.

.

.

.

May I just say to both of you that I very much appreciate your willingness to put ideas like these to the test.  It's enjoyable and stimulating to be s-t-r-e-t-c-h-e-d like this. 

.

.

.

Re: the hydrogen atom and it's interactions beyond itself...

Disillusioned, it's my understanding that gravitational interactions extend infinitely in every direction, yet cannot occur faster than c.  Therefore, any hydrogen atom, located anywhere in the universe, can only gravitationally interact with any other particle any where else, at or slower than c.  Therefore, unless the atom and another particle are quantum entangled or unless you are invoking some other form of superluminal interaction, the speed of c enforces a causal limit on all possible interactions. 

 

So a hydrogen atom in the glass of water on my desk cannot interact with a photon being emitted from the star Vega today.  The minimum amount of time they could interact in is calculated to be just over 25 years.  2015 + 25 = 2040.

 

Now, we come to the crux of the issue.

I submit that the number of ways you claim it is possible for the hydrogen atom to interact with other particles (like the photon) cannot be infinite.  Excluding quantum entanglement, is superluminal interaction possible between the atom and the photon?  If the answer is No, then the possible number of ways they can interact is not infinite.  It is less than infinity.  The number is finite.  The finite speed of c enforces a causal limit on the possible number of interactions between anything, anywhere in the universe.

 

Please note that I'm not making a deterministic argument here.

Inflationary theory and fractal cosmology take full account of quantum indeterminacy, yet they still arrive at the (tentative) conclusion that while the physical extent of the universe is deemed to be infinite, causality sets the number of possible interactions in given systems to a value that is not infinite.  Therefore, anything finite within the infinite universe must repeat itself. 

 

As usual D, please test what I'm saying to breaking point.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[bornagainathiest]

Hello again Disillusioned. 

 

As a follow-on from the example of the hydrogen atom and the photon from the star Vega, please consider the information I refer to from the following links.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_cone

 

The hydrogen atom in the glass of water on my desk is in close proximity to the OBSERVER (me  ) in the light cone diagram on this Wiki page.  The photon that left the star Vega today (09/30/2015) is separated from me and the glass by 25 light years of space in the hypersurface of the present.  It is therefore causally disconnected from me and the glass by the finite speed of c and so cannot interact with the hydrogen atom...today.

 

If it had left Vega 25 years ago (in 1990) then the photon would lie inside my PAST LIGHT CONE and would be able to interact with the hydrogen atom...today.  Likewise, if I were to return to my desk in the year 2040 (with a fresh glass of water), the photon leaving Vega today would lie within my FUTURE LIGHT CONE and therefore be able to interact with a hydrogen atom in the water.  All other outcomes (events) must therefore exist in the absolute elsewhere of E and are ruled out as being causally impossible. (Please refer to the last bulleted point in the 'Mathematical Construction' section.)

 

I submit that this diagram illustrates how the finite speed of c divides the universe into causally-connected and causally-disconnected regions.  That being so, there cannot be an infinite number of causally-possible events/interactions that can befall an observer located at a specific point in space and time.  To say otherwise would seem to me to be a direct violation of causality.

 

As a highly-relevant worked example of this kind of causal division, please look at this Wiki page.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon_problem

 

"In standard physical theories, no information can travel faster than the speed of light.  In this context, "information" means "any sort of physical interaction".

 

Now D, you stated that the hydrogen atom in question can interact with other particles in the universe in an infinite number of ways.  In the light of what these links are saying about causality, it seems to me that your statement should be qualified to read that the atom can only interact with those particles it is in causal contact with at any given time.  The sum of these causally-connected interactions (imho) cannot be infinite. 

 

But I could be wrong.

Please apply yourself to this conundrum with your usual rigor and test my ideas to destruction!

 

Thanks,

 

BAA. 

[disillusioned]

I would also like to say that I'm really enjoying this discussion. There are new things to be learned around every corner!

 

 

 

I submit that this diagram illustrates how the finite speed of c divides the universe into causally-connected and causally-disconnected regions.  That being so, there cannot be an infinite number of causally-possible events/interactions that can befall an observer located at a specific point in space and time.  To say otherwise would seem to me to be a direct violation of causality.

 

 

This is quite true. I have no issue with any of this. When I said that a hydrogen atom, in an infinite universe, can have an infinite number of interactions, I was not restricting myself to a specific time frame. Obviously, as you say, a hydrogen atom in your glass of water cannot interact with a photon which has just now been emitted from Vega today. But this photon and hydrogen atom may interact at some point.

 

Of course, when we are talking about observers, the amount of time we have to observe anything is necessarily finite. We only have so much time. Not so for the hydrogen atom. It has a potentially infinite future, with a potentially infinite number of particles to interact with. This is what I was referring to when I said that it could have an infinite number of interactions. Your arguments above regarding causally-connected and causally-disconnected regions of the universe are quite valid, and I take no issue with them. You say that my statement about the hydrogen atom should be qualified to read that it can only interact with those particles it is in causal contact with at any given time. I'm fine with this. But then you say that the sum of these causally-connected interactions cannot be infinite. I disagree with this. I think that it can be infinite, provided that we consider that the hydrogen atom (or its constituent parts) may continue to interact with other particles for an infinite amount of time. At any given time the sum must be finite, but over the whole of time it need not be.

 

I'm still not clear on how we establish that the universe is infinite though. To me, that seems to be a very important question. If the universe is not infinite, then the entire argument fails. I'm also not sure that anything finite within an infinite universe must repeat itself. This seems to be a non-sequitur to me. The set of natural numbers is infinite, but it contains only one of the number 3. Similarly, could not the universe potentially be infinite, but contain an infinite amount of variety rather than an infinite amount of repetition? If not, why not?

[Llwellyn]

Inflationary theory and fractal cosmology take full account of quantum indeterminacy

 

If they know that their theory "takes account" of chance, then they've entirely missed the point.

 

Even the use of the word "chance" accounts for only so much, and leaves out at least a bit.  A bit is enough to demolish even a single repetition of the smallest event.  Repeating multiverses sounds unlikely to me;  this is not consistent with what we see in evolution.  You say that "there are infinite number of Llwellyns who are identical to you," but this is as preposterous as the Christian idea of post-mortem corporeal reassembly -- we might as well believe the Bible's equivalent of repetition.  Call me a person who believes what's proven, and disbelieves what's not proven.

 

If "their job is to factor the indeterminate into the models they build," they have not learnt the lesson of science, although no doubt they do have jobs doing what they do.  The universe will never stop surprising us.  As Stephen Hawking said, "The loss of particles and information down black holes meant that the particles that came out were random."  As Lao Tzu said, "the Tao that can be named is not the infinite Tao."  There is a portal, perhaps infinitely small, but which will not be patched -- not by God and not by theories.  Science is about stubborn fact that will not yield to any person's model.

 

[bornagainathiest]

Dear Llwellyn and Disillusioned,

 

As I expected, the time I need to do justice to you is severely compromised today.  However, tomorrow is looking good and I plan to address as much as I can then.

.

.

.

In the meantime D, I can see the misapprehension your'e laboring under when it comes to the potential number of particles our hydrogen atom can interact with.

 

But I don't have the time to explain fully.

 

So please look at this Wiki page... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Deep_Field

 

1.  The Deep Field North imaged a tiny section of sky near the celestial North Pole.

 

2.  The Deep Field South imaged a tiny section of sky near the celestial South Pole.

 

3.  Both fields are on opposite sides of the sky and physically separated by many billions of light years.

(Let's opt for an average figure of 12 billion, making the separation 24 billion years.)

 

4.  We see both fields as they were 12 billion of years ago - not as they are now.

 

5.  Today, the galaxies in both fields are even further away from each other, due to the expansion of the universe.

.

.

.

 

Q.  

If a photon left a North Field galaxy today (travelling at c) how long would it take for it to causally interact with a hydrogen atom in a South Field galaxy?

 

When considering your answer D, please refer to this diagram for help.

.

.

.

 

.

.

.

I'll explain all, tomorrow.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[disillusioned]

BAA,

 

If I'm laboring under a misapprehension, then please feel free to demonstrate it at your leisure. I'm in no hurry here, and I really don't mind being shown when I'm wrong. But I'm afraid that I just don't quite understand what you are getting at. Yes, if a photon left a North field galaxy today, it would take a very long time to get here. It would take a much longer time to get to the south field galaxy. It could be the case that, given the expansion of the universe, it will never be able to reach the south field galaxy. I could dig out my old textbooks and notes and calculate this precisely, but I think this is somewhat beside the point. I'm happy to grant that the photon in question may not be able to interact causally with a hydrogen atom in the south field galaxy. I don't see how this really matters.

 

A hydrogen atom here and now consists of matter and energy which have existed (according to the standard model) since the origin of the Universe. In the past 14 odd billion years, this matter and energy have surely undergone an extremely large (but finite!) number of interactions. The number must be finite because the universe is past-finite. It may not be future-finite. Considering all future possible times, then, it seems that the total number of interactions that this matter and energy may undergo is infinite. This seems to me to be true even if the hydrogen atom in question is restricted to interacting with a finite subset of the universe. But perhaps I'm wrong. Please show me if I am. But if I'm not, then I don't think I'm disagreeing with you. This is all I was referring to when I said that a hydrogen atom may undergo a potentially infinite number of different interactions.

 

I will await your explanations with patient anticipation.

[bornagainathiest]

Hello again Disillusioned!  

 

 I hope to reward your patient anticipation.

 

BAA,

 

If I'm laboring under a misapprehension, then please feel free to demonstrate it at your leisure. I'm in no hurry here, and I really don't mind being shown when I'm wrong. But I'm afraid that I just don't quite understand what you are getting at. Yes, if a photon left a North field galaxy today, it would take a very long time to get here. It would take a much longer time to get to the south field galaxy. It could be the case that, given the expansion of the universe, it will never be able to reach the south field galaxy. I could dig out my old textbooks and notes and calculate this precisely, but I think this is somewhat beside the point. I'm happy to grant that the photon in question may not be able to interact causally with a hydrogen atom in the south field galaxy. I don't see how this really matters.

 

It matters D, because the entire universe has already undergone two phases of expansion and is about to undergo another one.

From our particular p.o.v., these phases of expansion have already pushed rest of the universe out of causal contact with the particles in our observable universe.  The first phase was when the universe Inflated from a quantum-sized entity to become infinitely large.  This superluminal expansion doesn't violate relativity because it was the fabric of space-time itself (known as the metric) that was moving faster than c.  Relativity forbids the movement of anything thru space-time at superluminal speeds, but the space-time metric itself doesn't come under that prohibition.  So, in a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second, the infinite universe divided itself up into causally separate regions.  The speed of inflation exceeded the speed of c by so many orders of magnitude that causal re-connection thru contact became impossible from the universe's get go.

 

Asking causality (travelling at c) to reconnect with these regions by contact is a bit like asking a paramecium to catch up to the USS Enterprise after she's being going at maximum warp for a few decades.

 

Oh and the Enterprise hasn't come to a full stop, either.  When it came out of warp it then went into a high, sub-light speed using it's Impulse engines.  (That's the 2nd phase of the universe's expansion.)

 

 

And if we refer to yesterday's diagram, we can see that the Enterprise (i.e., the universe) is about to floor the accelerator and expand even faster in the future.

 

 

The expansion in the above diagram is of post-inflationary kind (the 2nd phase), which we see happening in the distant observable universe, where remote galaxies are receding from us at greater and greater velocities.   Metaphorically speaking, this is the universe on high impulse after it's maximum warp inflationary phase.   The dotted line indicates where we are today and as you can see from the pale green line, our universe seems to heading towards a period of accelerated and eternal expansion.  This third phase ensures that even with an infinite amount of time, the paramecium moving at c will never causally re-connect with the regions inflated out of causal contact during the universe's inflationary phase of expansion.

 

The diagram is a result of the Supernova Cosmology Project's work, using the Hubble Space Telescope to determine  what the ultimate fate of the universe would be.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_universe What was discovered was totally unexpected.  Instead of slowing down or coasting, the universe appeared to be speeding up it's expansion.  The driving force behind this has been labelled Dark Energy.  Quite what it is remains unknown, but it is speculated to be something proper to the space-time metric itself, rather than an exotic particle that inhabits the metric.  

 

The causal disconnection created by inflation is being exacerbated by the continuing expansion of the universe and will be made much worse by it's eternally-accelerating expansion in the future.

For instance, the Milky Way galaxy is a major member of what's known as the Local Group of galaxies.  (About 50 distinct galaxies, major and minor.)  But in the future, every other galaxy in the universe will become causally disconnected from the Local Group.  From this Wiki page... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_of_an_expanding_universe

 

Coalescence of Local Group and galaxies outside the Local Group are no longer accessible[edit] 10¹¹ (100 billion) to 10¹² (1 trillion) years

The galaxies in the Local Group, the cluster of galaxies which includes the Milky Way and the Andromeda Galaxy, are gravitationally bound to each other. It is expected that between 10¹¹ (100 billion) and 10¹² (1 trillion) years from now, their orbits will decay and the entire Local Group will merge into one large galaxy.^[4]

Assuming that dark energy continues to make the universe expand at an accelerating rate, in about 150 billion years all galaxies outside the local group will pass behind the cosmological horizon. It will then be impossible for events in the local group to affect other galaxies. Similarly it will be impossible for events after 150 billion years, as seen by observers in distant galaxies, to affect events in the local group.^[3] However, an observer in the local group will continue to see distant galaxies, but events they observe will become exponentially more time dilated (and red shifted^[3]) as the galaxy approaches the horizon until time in the distant galaxy seems to stop. The observer in the local group never actually sees the distant galaxy pass beyond the horizon and never observes events after 150 billion years in their local time. Therefore, after 150 billion years intergalactic transportation and communication becomes causally impossible.

.

.

.

At this point, another look at the light-cone diagram might help.

 

 

If our observable universe take the role of 'Observer', then for the first phase of expansion (Inflation) we have to assume that there is no Past light cone or that it's nature is unknown to us.

If the Big Bang was the origin of time and space, then the apex of the Future light cone is the ultimate point of origin of everything.  When the count of time begins, Inflation pushes other regions of the universe MASSIVELY out of all causal contact across the Hypersurface of the Present.  The only way these regions can causally re-connect with our observable universe is if they enter into our universe's Future light cone.  And they can only do that at the velocity of c.  

 

But as we have seen, the distances involved are too great and space itself has been expanding and will accelerate in it's expansion in the future.

Our observable universe will become more and more causally-disconnected from these already far distant, disconnected regions.  Eventually, the shrinking sphere of causal disconnection will isolate our Local Group from the rest of the universe.  So, rather than the future holding the potential for infinite interactions, our poor hydrogen atom will have fewer and fewer particles it can interact with.

 

A hydrogen atom here and now consists of matter and energy which have existed (according to the standard model) since the origin of the Universe. In the past 14 odd billion years, this matter and energy have surely undergone an extremely large (but finite!) number of interactions. The number must be finite because the universe is past-finite. It may not be future-finite. Considering all future possible times, then, it seems that the total number of interactions that this matter and energy may undergo is infinite. This seems to me to be true even if the hydrogen atom in question is restricted to interacting with a finite subset of the universe. But perhaps I'm wrong. Please show me if I am. But if I'm not, then I don't think I'm disagreeing with you. This is all I was referring to when I said that a hydrogen atom may undergo a potentially infinite number of different interactions.

 

I will await your explanations with patient anticipation.

 

 

 

And now we must factor in the Copernican Principle into the argument, D.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copernican_principle This principle agrees with General and Special Relativity, requiring us to not to treat our observable universe as anything special, but to treat all locations as relative to each other.  Therefore, the causal disconnection of the other regions of the universe from our observable universe, must be applied to ALL regions of the universe.  Without favor, without privilege and without prejudice.  

 

We are therefore required to assume that Inflation caused ALL regions of the universe to become causally-disconnected from each other.

All regions passed beyond each other's Future light cones, never to return.  All these regions are also assumed to have undergone the second phase of slower expansion that we see affecting distant galaxies in our observable universe.  Likewise, it is also assumed that they will undergo eternally-accelerating expansion, just as our observable universe is anticipated to do so.  Like the observable universe of our far distant future, galaxies in these regions will also become increasingly causally-disconnected from their own surroundings.

 

The salient point to take away from this is that Inflation created an infinite universe which it causally divided into discrete, finite regions.

Anything (like a hydrogen atom) within those regions can only interact with whatever is within those separate regions.  If we sum up all possible interactions in any discrete region, the number is incredibly high, but not infinitely so.  Logic therefore requires that anything of finite potential, within the wider context of an infinity, must repeat it's finite number of permutations and do so, over and over again.  There is no viable physical mechanism for resetting this cosmic asymmetry.   The combination of superluminal Inflation, the accelerating universal expansion and the finite speed of c, when taken in the context of Relativity and the Copernican Principle, combine to thwart the possibility of an infinite universe of infinite variety.  Instead, these five factors tell us that an infinite universe of limited (finite) variety must cause a repeated expression of this finite variety.  

 

This argument rests on Inflationary theory (well-supported by accurately-confirmed predictions), accelerating universal expansion (independently confirmed by two teams using the Hubble Space Telescope), the finite speed of light (also well-supported by many independent tests), Einstein's strongly-tested theory of General Relativity and the correct usage of the Copernican principle, which is a fundamental assumption of modern cosmology and theoretical physics.

 

(Please note that even if we postulate that Inflation did not create an infinitely-large universe, the calculations show that the inflated volume is still so vast as to effortlessly defeat causal reconnection at the speed of c.)

 

The five elements of the argument, when taken together, are one reason why a universe of infinite size but finite variety must repeat (iterate) itself, infinitely.

.

.

.

Actually, there is another reason why this is so.

But to explore that we'd have to delve into Quantum physics and this is why I've held off from tackling Llwellyn's 'chance-based' objections.  

(If you're reading this L, please don't think I'm ignoring you.  It's just that I needed to carefully lay out my argument in terms in cosmological and relativisitic terms for Disillusioned, because that's where his misapprehension lay.  I will apply myself to your points in due time.   )

 

But I think that's quite enough for today, ok?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[disillusioned]

Hi BAA!

 

Thanks very much for your well-reasoned explanations. I will consider them carefully and reply in due course, but I would hate to think of myself as dominating this thread. As you say, there are also questions which Llwellyn has raised, and which I'm interested to see your response to as well. So I will wait to comment further until the chance argument has been addressed. This will also give me time to clarify my thoughts on the above . Thanks!

[disillusioned]

Hi BAA and Llwellyn!

 

I have a response prepared for post 47 above, but I'm wondering whether I should wait to post it until the chance argument has been addressed. I don't want to push too far forward on one front when there are other questions which remain to be answered. If you would both prefer me to go ahead and post, please let me know. Otherwise, I will hold off until the discussion moves forward.

[Llwellyn]

Go ahead and post what you would!