Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

What Is All This About Entropy, And Saying The Universe Can't Be Infinite?


shockwaves

Recommended Posts

This transcendent cause must be personal because the universe was created at some distinct point else there is no way to explain why we are not still in the singularity, we are not already in heat death or any point in-between.

 

Does the phrase 'does not follow' ring a bell? Non sequitur if you rather.

You need to read the entire sentence. If it were via some law of nature(i.e. through necessity) then how can you explain why we are exactly at the current moment in time?

Anthropic principle. Same reason we aren't living on mars or venus.

 

I don't need to explain that, do I?

 

It in no way implies a "personal" anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 80
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • OrdinaryClay

    22

  • Ouroboros

    16

  • Shyone

    12

  • Petrel

    8

Borde, Guth, Vilenkin published a paper on the past boundaries of inflationary spacetimes. They demonstrated that such topologies can not be past eternal. Translated this means the universe must have had a beginning.

Very interesting. Thanks.

 

So what's your view on following comments by Guth: (one of the guys you mention above)

So far, it's been made to sound, I think for the purposes of simplifying things, that until the cyclic model, all scientists had believed that the big bang was the origin of time itself. That idea is certainly part of the classic theory of the big bang, but it's an idea which I think most cosmologists have not taken seriously in quite a while. That is, the idea that there's something that happened before what we call the big bang has been around for quite a number of years... In what I would regard as the conventional version of the inflationary theory, the Big Bang was also not in that theory the origin of everything but rather one had a very long period of this exponential expansion of the universe, which is what inflation means, and, at different points, different pieces of this inflating universe had stopped inflating and become what I sometimes call pocket universes.

 

And

What we call the Big Bang was almost certainly not the actual origin of time in either of the theories that we’re talking about. … The main difference I think [between the inflationary theory and Neil and Paul's theory] is the answer to the question of what is it that made the universe large and smooth everything out. … The inflationary version of cosmology is not cyclic. … It goes on literally forever with new universes being created in other places. The inflationary prediction is that our region of the universe would become ultimately empty and void but meanwhile other universes would sprout out in other places in this multiverse.

 

So are we the First Universe, or are we just a universe spawned from another universe?

 

A link would be appreciated so I could read the entire quote.

 

It supports his idea that inflationary universes may be future infinite from what I can gather. The point I'm making is that it is not infinite into the past, i.e. it had a beginning. The notion of pocket universes describe how we may be infinite into the future.

 

Alan Guth's Web Page

Another intriguing feature of inflation is that almost all versions of inflation are eternal—once inflation starts, it never stops completely. Inflation has ended in our part of the universe, but very far away one expects that inflation is continuing, and will continue forever. Is it possible, then, that inflation is also eternal into the past? Recently Guth has worked with Alex Vilenkin (Tufts) and Arvind Borde (Southampton College) to show that the inflating region of spacetime must have a past boundary, and that some new physics, perhaps a quantum theory of creation, would be needed to understand it.

http://web.mit.edu/physics/people/faculty/guth_alan.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The cosmological arguments for God's existence all have the premise that the universe began to exist. The 2nd law of Thermodynamics can be used as reasoning to support this. If the universe were infinite into the pass the 2nd law states that the universe should have died a heat death already. It has not ergo the universe began to exist.

Does the second law of thermodynamics apply to God?

God is supernatural. The 2nd law is a characteristic of the natural. So, no offense, the question does not make sense. What is north of the north pole?

Wow.

 

I get that kind of answer a lot. When apologists can't answer, they avoiding the question by accusing me of presenting a false question. How devious and asinine. Their supercilious and pretentious attitude clearly comes through when they're doing it.

 

Obviously you're not at all interested in truth. It's evident that you are not believing because you ask all questions. You stop the questions when they become difficult. It's a very dishonest position.

 

But since you're going that route. The question "Is God omnipotent" would fall into the same category. The same for "First Cause" or any of your questions you present. All of them are false questions. Does God have power? "The question does not make sense. What is north of the north pole?"

 

So what is north of the north pole? Well, it seems like the answer is not God.

I did answer the question. I said honestly that the question was meaningless and is analogous to asking what is north of the north pole. Natural laws do not apply to God because God is supernatural. I don't understand why you took offense to that. No offense was intended. I just stated the fact.

 

No, God is not north of the north pole. The question is incoherent. I can not even say nothing is north of the north pole, because that would imply that something could be. The question is simply unanswerable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A link would be appreciated so I could read the entire quote.

I got it from here: http://www.onpointradio.org/2007/05/forget-the-big-bang-theory

 

It supports his idea that inflationary universes may be future infinite from what I can gather. The point I'm making is that it is not infinite into the past, i.e. it had a beginning. The notion of pocket universes describe how we may be infinite into the future.

Right. Our universe does not have an infinite past. But the multiverse does.

 

 

 

From his website:

 

Much of Guth's current work also concerns the study of density fluctuations arising from inflation: What are the implications of novel forms of inflation? Can the underlying theory be made more rigorous? Guth is also interested in pursuing the possibility of inflation in "brane world" models, which propose that our universe is a 3+1–dimensional membrane floating in a higher dimensional space.

 

One of the membrane theories suggests an infinite multiverse "outside" our time and space. In essence, our universe had a beginning, but within an infinite/eternal multiverse. Your God, but without the anthropomorphized attributes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This transcendent cause must be personal because the universe was created at some distinct point else there is no way to explain why we are not still in the singularity, we are not already in heat death or any point in-between.

 

Does the phrase 'does not follow' ring a bell? Non sequitur if you rather.

You need to read the entire sentence. If it were via some law of nature(i.e. through necessity) then how can you explain why we are exactly at the current moment in time?

Anthropic principle. Same reason we aren't living on mars or venus.

 

I don't need to explain that, do I?

 

It in no way implies a "personal" anything.

The anthropic principal explains why we can observe not why there is something to observe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did answer the question. I said honestly that the question was meaningless and is analogous to asking what is north of the north pole. Natural laws do not apply to God because God is supernatural. I don't understand why you took offense to that. No offense was intended. I just stated the fact.

Ah. Accepted.

 

Then I might point out that the evidence for a multiverse carries the same weight and the same attributes, since the multiverse essentially is God, without the extra unnecessary luggage.

 

No, God is not north of the north pole. The question is incoherent. I can not even say nothing is north of the north pole, because that would imply that something could be. The question is simply unanswerable.

Well then, the multiverse is proven.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So far, it's been made to sound, I think for the purposes of simplifying things, that until the cyclic model, all scientists had believed that the big bang was the origin of time itself. That idea is certainly part of the classic theory of the big bang, but it's an idea which I think most cosmologists have not taken seriously in quite a while. That is, the idea that there's something that happened before what we call the big bang has been around for quite a number of years... In what I would regard as the conventional version of the inflationary theory, the Big Bang was also not in that theory the origin of everything but rather one had a very long period of this exponential expansion of the universe, which is what inflation means, and, at different points, different pieces of this inflating universe had stopped inflating and become what I sometimes call pocket universes.

 

Ideas are changing to accommodate data that doesn't fit the current cosmological model. When I wrote that OrdinaryClay only knows "one model", this type of controversy and discussion is what I was referring to.

 

It appears that the models are slowly being adjusted to account for the things that are missing that should be in the Big Bang model and to account for things that are present that shouldn't be in the Big Bang Model.

 

For the heck of it and for the purpose of attracting as much ridicule as possible, I think I'll post my own "theory." It fits the data, is falsifiable, and also incorporates much of the theories regarding the nature of the universe. The key is that the current models have inflation as a precipitating event for the creation of mass. I think that this may have some implications because the universe is still inflating. This inflation takes place between the galaxy clusters.

 

Anyway, I'll post it when I get home. Probably in the off-topic section.

I look forward to reading it including the scientific support for your ideas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I look forward to reading it including the scientific support for your ideas.

So what is your scientific support for an anthropomorphized supernatural being?

 

If supernatural is outside space-time, and this being doesn't follow any natural laws or rules (North of North Pole), then how do you manage to scientifically prove this creature of your imagination?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This transcendent cause must be personal because the universe was created at some distinct point else there is no way to explain why we are not still in the singularity, we are not already in heat death or any point in-between.

 

Does the phrase 'does not follow' ring a bell? Non sequitur if you rather.

You need to read the entire sentence. If it were via some law of nature(i.e. through necessity) then how can you explain why we are exactly at the current moment in time?

Anthropic principle. Same reason we aren't living on mars or venus.

 

I don't need to explain that, do I?

 

It in no way implies a "personal" anything.

The anthropic principal explains why we can observe not why there is something to observe.

Exactly. You asked, "why we are exactly at the current moment in time?" The answer is the anthropic principle. Why is the year 2010? This current moment in time? Because we weren't born long ago or in the future.

 

If you want to address "why there is something to observe" then don't refer to the "current moment in time."

 

As for "why there is something to observe", I suspect that any explanation will be met with a 5 year-old's retort, "Why?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Crystals are the result of natural laws as can be demonstrated by science. They have a demonstrated cause.

 

So when we can't yet demonstrate something or understand the principles it's supernatural? God of the gaps. Those gaps just keep getting smaller though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way, there is a North of the North Pole concept, as long as the person accepts imaginary numbers and thinking outside the box--or better yet, the sphere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Crystals are the result of natural laws as can be demonstrated by science. They have a demonstrated cause.

 

So when we can't yet demonstrate something or understand the principles it's supernatural? God of the gaps. Those gaps just keep getting smaller though.

I have pointed this out to him before, but it doesn't sink in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

From his website:

 

Much of Guth's current work also concerns the study of density fluctuations arising from inflation: What are the implications of novel forms of inflation? Can the underlying theory be made more rigorous? Guth is also interested in pursuing the possibility of inflation in "brane world" models, which propose that our universe is a 3+1–dimensional membrane floating in a higher dimensional space.

 

One of the membrane theories suggests an infinite multiverse "outside" our time and space. In essence, our universe had a beginning, but within an infinite/eternal multiverse. Your God, but without the anthropomorphized attributes.

His proofs showing a past beginning applies to universes based on string theory as well.

 

See last slide on here. There is currently no getting around a beginning of the universe.

Eternally inflating models, including the cyclic ekpyrotic model, are pastincomplete — some new physics (quantum origin?) is needed to describe the past boundary of the inflating region.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Crystals are the result of natural laws as can be demonstrated by science. They have a demonstrated cause.

 

So when we can't yet demonstrate something or understand the principles it's supernatural? God of the gaps. Those gaps just keep getting smaller though.

It is not a gap argument because it uses reasoning based on the best explanation, which is valid form of reasoning. See Lipton's book here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Crystals are the result of natural laws as can be demonstrated by science. They have a demonstrated cause.

 

So when we can't yet demonstrate something or understand the principles it's supernatural? God of the gaps. Those gaps just keep getting smaller though.

It is not a gap argument because it uses reasoning based on the best explanation, which is valid form of reasoning. See Lipton's book here.

The supernatural is never the best explanation. It is not an explanation. It is an abdication of any attempt to explain anything.

 

It is a surrender to ignorance.

 

I looked at Lipton's book briefly, and I noted the following results for a search:

 

No results found in this book for supernatural

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Crystals are the result of natural laws as can be demonstrated by science. They have a demonstrated cause.

 

So when we can't yet demonstrate something or understand the principles it's supernatural? God of the gaps. Those gaps just keep getting smaller though.

It is not a gap argument because it uses reasoning based on the best explanation, which is valid form of reasoning. See Lipton's book here.

The supernatural is never the best explanation. It is not an explanation. It is an abdication of any attempt to explain anything.

 

It is a surrender to ignorance.

Given the entire body of science it is irrational to believe the universe is self causing. If it can not cause itself then the cause by definition is supernatural. Unless, you beg the question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

His proofs showing a past beginning applies to universes based on string theory as well.

The multiverse is not the same as the universe.

 

See last slide on here. There is currently no getting around a beginning of the universe.

Right. Not of this universe.

 

Eternally inflating models, including the cyclic ekpyrotic model, are pastincomplete — some new physics (quantum origin?) is needed to describe the past boundary of the inflating region.

God doesn't fit in the formulas. The multiverse does.

 

God is an unproven and non-mathematical hypothesis.

 

All other natural explanations have a higher probability of being accurate.

 

If the math shows a "universe" beyond our universe, then that is your God's universe. To argue against these ideas is to take the side of trying to disprove God. You're doing yourself a disservice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given the entire body of science it is irrational to believe the universe is self causing. If it can not cause itself then the cause by definition is supernatural. Unless, you beg the question.

To solve the equation by using "God" (black box) is begging the question. It doesn't solve anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OC's favorite fallacy: Argumentum Verbosium

 

http://www.heavingdeadcats.com/2009/02/18/logical-fallacy-6-argumentum-verbosium-proof-by-intimidation/

 

'It's in the book, I swear. If you weren't so ignorant you'd see I'm right.'

So if I explained the concept of an Argument to the Best Explanation you would accept it? Sometimes pointing people to books helps for several reasons. It is easy for you to go off and do your homework and understand the concept. Science does not call their explanations behind the Cambrian Explosion gap arguments. They call them best explanations. It is valid and legitimate to reason in this way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Crystals are the result of natural laws as can be demonstrated by science. They have a demonstrated cause.

 

So when we can't yet demonstrate something or understand the principles it's supernatural? God of the gaps. Those gaps just keep getting smaller though.

It is not a gap argument because it uses reasoning based on the best explanation, which is valid form of reasoning. See Lipton's book here.

The supernatural is never the best explanation. It is not an explanation. It is an abdication of any attempt to explain anything.

 

It is a surrender to ignorance.

Given the entire body of science it is irrational to believe the universe is self causing. If it can not cause itself then the cause by definition is supernatural. Unless, you beg the question.

That is nothing more than saying, "We don't know the cause of the universe, so it must be supernatural" and that is an argument from ignorance.

 

Perhaps you aren't aware of some arguments for a self caused universe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OC's favorite fallacy: Argumentum Verbosium

 

http://www.heavingdeadcats.com/2009/02/18/logical-fallacy-6-argumentum-verbosium-proof-by-intimidation/

 

'It's in the book, I swear. If you weren't so ignorant you'd see I'm right.'

Thanks. I bookmarked that page.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if I explained the concept of an Argument to the Best Explanation you would accept it? Sometimes pointing people to books helps for several reasons. It is easy for you to go off and do your homework and understand the concept. Science does not call their explanations behind the Cambrian Explosion gap arguments. They call them best explanations. It is valid and legitimate to reason in this way.

So we're off to evolution now?

 

Most of us have done their homework. It's time you do yours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given the entire body of science it is irrational to believe the universe is self causing. If it can not cause itself then the cause by definition is supernatural. Unless, you beg the question.

That is nothing more than saying, "We don't know the cause of the universe, so it must be supernatural" and that is an argument from ignorance.

 

Perhaps you aren't aware of some arguments for a self caused universe.

These have no basis in science. There is no evidence such things are possible. They are pure speculation. A materialist can not rely on speculation. Speculation for a materialist is tantamount to a miracle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... the universe...

What is the universe anyway? Seriously.

 

Aren't we still in the process of discovering what it is? :shrug:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.