Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Attn B.a.a - Beginning Of The Universe Question


LogicalFallacy

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

Infinite replication paradox - I understand what the idea is, but have not been able to figure out how it fits into refuting Genesis 1:1. My current idea is that because everything is repeated infinitely, not only is the current universe certain, but because of infinity there never could have been an "in the beginning". I remember BAA talking about this in another thread about how the big bang is possibly only the beginning of our pocket universe in an infinite number of pocket universes, each with repeating patterns. (Which he mentioned in his letter) 

 

Is this the thread you're talking about LF? Either way, it might be interesting to others who have been following this discussion. Obviously BAA and I were initially in disagreement about the infinite replication question in that thread. I felt like we were moving towards making some progress though. Then I got busy and put it off until I had more time. Sadly, another conversation never to be completed.

 

2 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

I'm still at a loss how to combine the four things into a coherent argument against Genesis 1:1.

 

 

I'm not sure about that either, but I"m happy to through some ideas around with you (and others!) if you're interested...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
9 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

Infinite replication paradox - I understand what the idea is, but have not been able to figure out how it fits into refuting Genesis 1:1. My current idea is that because everything is repeated infinitely, not only is the current universe certain, but because of infinity there never could have been an "in the beginning". I remember BAA talking about this in another thread about how the big bang is possibly only the beginning of our pocket universe in an infinite number of pocket universes, each with repeating patterns. (Which he mentioned in his letter) 

 

I'm still at a loss how to combine the four things into a coherent argument against Genesis 1:1.

 

 

So anyone wanting to take a crack at this, fire away.

 

Until I came across Mark's argument I had only focused in on the problem of "days." I had it down to where "day" 1 can not be literal, therefore none of the other days thereafter can be interpreted as literal either. Nor symbolic, as liberal christians try and do, which fails the same way. 

 

Mark's argument went even further than my own, cutting their heads off at the very outset from Genesis 1:1

 

You are on the track to understanding the argument because it's focused on refuting any fixed "beginning" for the heavens and earth. The heavens are essentially beginning-less and the earth was NOT formed before the sun, moon, planets and various other stars in the "heavens." It's a real non-starter. No "In the beginning" in any literal sense, and no "created the heavens and earth" in one shot at the same time either. 

 

Then, behind that, we face continuous problems thereafter right on through each of the "days" whether interpreted literally or symbolically. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

Until I came across Mark's argument I had only focused in on the problem of "days." I had it down to where "day" 1 can not be literal, therefore none of the other days thereafter can be interpreted as literal either. Nor symbolic, as liberal christians try and do, which fails the same way. 

 

Mark's argument went even further than my own, cutting their heads off at the very outset from Genesis 1:1

 

You are on the track to understanding the argument because it's focused on refuting any fixed "beginning" for the heavens and earth. The heavens are essentially beginning-less and the earth was NOT formed before the sun, moon, planets and various other stars in the "heavens." It's a real non-starter. No "In the beginning" in any literal sense, and no "created the heavens and earth" in one shot at the same time either. 

 

Then, behind that, we face continuous problems thereafter right on through each of the "days" whether interpreted literally or symbolically. 

 

I suspect this gets to the heart of it. No fixed beginning. And if there is a fixed beginning for "the heavens" it certainly isn't the same as the beginning of the Earth. "God created" is another non-starter, unless we stretch the meanings of either or both of these words a little farther than we normally would.

 

I'm wondering if Mark would have also argued that the verse implies the existence of only one unique Earth, and that this is refuted by the infinite replication hypothesis. I'm not entirely convinced of this hypothesis myself, but if we take it as granted for the moment then it does seem to follow that our Earth is not, in any real sense, "The Earth". So no fixed beginning, no evidence of a divine hand, no act of creation, no simultaneous creation of heavens and Earth, and no one unique Earth.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
10 hours ago, disillusioned said:

Is this the thread you're talking about LF?

 

Hi @disillusioned Yes that is it thank you. I think there is commonality of subject between this thread, the thread you linked, and the Limited vs Complete understanding thread

Quote

 

Either way, it might be interesting to others who have been following this discussion. Obviously BAA and I were initially in disagreement about the infinite replication question in that thread. I felt like we were moving towards making some progress though. Then I got busy and put it off until I had more time. Sadly, another conversation never to be completed.

 

 

I'm not sure about that either, but I"m happy to through some ideas around with you (and others!) if you're interested...

 

I am certainly interested in discussing all this!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
2 hours ago, disillusioned said:

 

I suspect this gets to the heart of it. No fixed beginning. And if there is a fixed beginning for "the heavens" it certainly isn't the same as the beginning of the Earth. "God created" is another non-starter, unless we stretch the meanings of either or both of these words a little farther than we normally would.

 

I'm wondering if Mark would have also argued that the verse implies the existence of only one unique Earth, and that this is refuted by the infinite replication hypothesis. I'm not entirely convinced of this hypothesis myself, but if we take it as granted for the moment then it does seem to follow that our Earth is not, in any real sense, "The Earth". So no fixed beginning, no evidence of a divine hand, no act of creation, no simultaneous creation of heavens and Earth, and no one unique Earth.

 

It's an odd and out of the ordinary thing to come out of science. I get that. 

 

But apparently this is what stems from infinite and eternal cosmological modeling. And I realize that infinite and eternal cosmological modeling is the only logical way of approaching the issue (both leading models Mark and I were discussing are of this variety). The question of what came before the beginning, vanishes. Where a theist would posit that a god is what existed before the beginning of the universe, the cosmos itself had always existed in the same way. And there's no need to posit a god with no beginning or end when the natural cosmos fits the same description and serves the same exact function in terms of the human mind trying to grasp reality. A natural cosmos, self existent, with no beginning or end. 

 

That's all that I think the gods of mythology are - the human mind trying to grasp the magnitude of reality and existence. The mind always comes down to the need for something to have always existed with no fixed beginning. So, the primitive mind posited eternal gods with no beginning or end. That satisfied the need for a while. But we've evolved far beyond that now. And we simply conceptualize the natural cosmos itself as infinite and eternal. For anyone silently following, I'm trying to break this down to simplicity for everyone's sake. 

 

But the thing is, the equations reveal that in an infinite and eternal cosmos, repetition follows (refer to Alan Guth for the physics). 

 

I'm trying to step it down step by step to where Mark was coming from this infinite replication paradox thing. The reason I'm somewhat keen to it is because I understand very clearly the necessity of an infinite and eternal cosmological model to explain reality and existence. So the baggage that comes attached to it, namely infinite replication, just sort of is what it is to me. I never knew about it until Mark brought it up. But it makes sense considering all the factors at play. Especially the pressing need for an infinite and eternal cosmos to accurately describe the universe, existence and reality. 

 

This whole thing sharpens the argument. But at the same time even if it were wrong, the remaining arguments down the line are so strong and so many that it doesn't do an apologist any bit of good to defeat this one, if they were able to defeat it. But I don't see how they would be able to defeat it. 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes LF, I've also noticed the area of commonality between the "Limited vs Complete Understanding" thread, this one, and that other one from the Den. Perhaps some identification of areas to explore would be appropriate? Here's a few things to consider. Please add others as you see fit.

 

At the moment, and after reading both this thread and the LvCU thread, one of the things I'm interested in looking at is the potential limits of science. I'm curious about whether or not we can identify what those limits are, and what methods we might use to approach the questions that science can't treat. I'm wondering about what Josh has termed "mysticism" in the other thread. This is not something that I know a great deal (or anything, really) about, so I'd love the opportunity to explore it.

 

We can also look more in depth at theories of infinite replication as well. As you know I'm skeptical of these theories, but there is also a great deal about them that I don't really know. I'd be happy to look dive into it more though if its of interest.

 

I was very intrigued by the idea that BAA and Josh were discussing in the other thread about categorizing and analysing the things that people place their trust in and turn to when trying to describe reality (this was in a series of posts from May 29, on page 6 of that thread). That would certainly be fun to look at.

 

Having said that, I don't want to derail anything that's going on here. We can start another thread if it's more appropriate, or carry on in this one. Thoughts?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
6 minutes ago, disillusioned said:

I'm wondering about what Josh has termed "mysticism" in the other thread. This is not something that I know a great deal (or anything, really) about, so I'd love the opportunity to explore it.

 

For better clarity, let's call what I'm talking about naturalistic mysticism. I'm using it in the way that Sam Harris would use the same terminology. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, Joshpantera said:

It's an odd and out of the ordinary thing to come out of science. I get that. 

 

But apparently this is what stems from infinite and eternal cosmological modeling. And I realize that infinite and eternal cosmological modeling is the only logical way of approaching the issue (both leading models Mark and I were discussing are of this variety). The question of what came before the beginning, vanishes. Where a theist would posit that a god is what existed before the beginning of the universe, the cosmos itself had always existed in the same way. And there's no need to posit a god with no beginning or end when the natural cosmos fits the same description and serves the same exact function in terms of the human mind trying to grasp reality. A natural cosmos, self existent, with no beginning or end. 

 

That's all that I think the gods of mythology are - the human mind trying to grasp the magnitude of reality and existence. The mind always comes down to the need for something to have always existed with no fixed beginning. So, the primitive mind posited eternal gods with no beginning or end. That satisfied the need for a while. But we've evolved far beyond that now. And we simply conceptualize the natural cosmos itself as infinite and eternal. For anyone silently following, I'm trying to break this down to simplicity for everyone's sake. 

 

But the thing is, the equations reveal that in an infinite and eternal cosmos, repetition follows (refer to Alan Guth for the physics). 

 

I'm trying to step it down step by step to where Mark was coming from this infinite replication paradox thing. The reason I'm somewhat keen to it is because I understand very clearly the necessity of an infinite and eternal cosmological model to explain reality and existence. So the baggage that comes attached to it, namely infinite replication, just sort of is what it is to me. I never knew about it until Mark brought it up. But it makes sense considering all the factors at play. Especially the pressing need for an infinite and eternal cosmos to accurately describe the universe, existence and reality. 

 

This whole thing sharpens the argument. But at the same time even if it were wrong, the remaining arguments down the line are so strong and so many that it doesn't do an apologist any bit of good to defeat this one, if they were able to defeat it. But I don't see how they would be able to defeat it. 

 

This is of significant interest to me, and I want to comment on it, but at the moment I don't feel very well equipped to. I understand inflation, and even eternal inflation in general, but I want to look at the specifics in some more detail before I go into detail about the concerns that I have with it. To that end, I'm going to start by reading this article by Alan Guth entitled "Eternal inflation and its implications". After that, I will hopefully be able to respond to the above.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
7 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

Until I came across Mark's argument I had only focused in on the problem of "days." I had it down to where "day" 1 can not be literal, therefore none of the other days thereafter can be interpreted as literal either. Nor symbolic, as liberal christians try and do, which fails the same way. 

 

Mark's argument went even further than my own, cutting their heads off at the very outset from Genesis 1:1

 

You are on the track to understanding the argument because it's focused on refuting any fixed "beginning" for the heavens and earth. The heavens are essentially beginning-less and the earth was NOT formed before the sun, moon, planets and various other stars in the "heavens." It's a real non-starter. No "In the beginning" in any literal sense, and no "created the heavens and earth" in one shot at the same time either. 

 

Then, behind that, we face continuous problems thereafter right on through each of the "days" whether interpreted literally or symbolically. 

 

Right, Mark thought that once you refute Genesis 1:1 there was no need to argue chapters 1 and 2 as a whole (Even though multiple arguments can be made scientifically, historically, and comparatively with other religions.)

 

I think a major problem with coming up with a sound answer is infinite replication. The big bang essentially creates a "in the beginning" point for Christians. Infinite replication would solve that, but as disillusion said, he is not convinced of the hypothesis, and lets remember it is a hypothesis. I don't know how we could even begin to test it for data and the null hypothesis.

 

What I don't want to do in arguments with Christians is be spouting off stuff that has little backing. Christians do that all the time with goddidit and other meaning less stuff - they just make up what God did and why to suit themselves. Let us not fall into the same trap.

 

2 hours ago, disillusioned said:

Yes LF, I've also noticed the area of commonality between the "Limited vs Complete Understanding" thread, this one, and that other one from the Den. Perhaps some identification of areas to explore would be appropriate? Here's a few things to consider. Please add others as you see fit.

 

Certainly, and keeping the various subjects on topic so we don't wander around aimlessly is important. Mark was always good and keeping things on point.

 

2 hours ago, disillusioned said:

At the moment, and after reading both this thread and the LvCU thread, one of the things I'm interested in looking at is the potential limits of science. I'm curious about whether or not we can identify what those limits are, and what methods we might use to approach the questions that science can't treat. I'm wondering about what Josh has termed "mysticism" in the other thread. This is not something that I know a great deal (or anything, really) about, so I'd love the opportunity to explore it.

 

Yes, and I touched on limits in regards to infinite replication paradox above.

 

2 hours ago, disillusioned said:

We can also look more in depth at theories of infinite replication as well. As you know I'm skeptical of these theories, but there is also a great deal about them that I don't really know. I'd be happy to look dive into it more though if its of interest.

 

Well Mark certainly found them of great interest, and obviously thought them important in at least two arguments against the bible. The first argument is in this thread (Genesis fails at 1:1) and the other was in the Please test this thread regarding inflation, which seemed to combine inflation with infinite replication. Interestingly Marks idea was that inflation did have a 'start', but once started is never ending. I'm not sure if you can have infinite replication if there was a 'start'?

 

2 hours ago, disillusioned said:

I was very intrigued by the idea that BAA and Josh were discussing in the other thread about categorizing and analysing the things that people place their trust in and turn to when trying to describe reality (this was in a series of posts from May 29, on page 6 of that thread). That would certainly be fun to look at.

 

Having said that, I don't want to derail anything that's going on here. We can start another thread if it's more appropriate, or carry on in this one. Thoughts?

 

I would say things that relate specifically to threads should be discussed in those threads, but we will be apply to apply what is learned in other threads to all the other threads... if you understand what I mean there. Example the LvCU thread informs us that we really cannot have complete understanding thus when discussing theories in this thread we need to be aware of it, if we intend to use it to argue against the bible.

 

If you think it is an entirely separate subject, then yes I'd say its own thread is appropriate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
1 hour ago, LogicalFallacy said:

What I don't want to do in arguments with Christians is be spouting off stuff that has little backing. Christians do that all the time with goddidit and other meaning less stuff - they just make up what God did and why to suit themselves. Let us not fall into the same trap.

 

Mark was not bothered by this. And why I think he was not bothered by this is because the apologists that he's speaking to are the variety who are trying to claim that scientific theory, namely BBT, supports the bible. So the playing field itself has to do with scientific theory. That said, they are reaching for outdated scientific theory to bolster their own conclusions. This speaks directly to the likes of men like of William Lane Craig: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalam_cosmological_argument

 

He's trying to use scientific theoretical ideas like a singularity. 

 

This is where Mark has dismantled these specific arguments by applying the very forefront of cosmology and physics against their outdated conceptual usage in the apologetic's. This is why theoretical physics is precisely fair game and the basis for the entire debate itself. Mark had taken WLC's claims and showed the specific errors involved in them. That's the context that eternal inflation and infinite replication paradox enter into the debate against apologist's like WLC.  

 

1 hour ago, LogicalFallacy said:

Yes, and I touched on limits in regards to infinite replication paradox above.

 

The PM that I added to the Dude thread was a conversation following PIPER and PIXIE:

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hey Josh!

 

I'm PMing this stuff to you because I know that you have a burning interest in Inflationary cosmology.

 

Just a few days ago I came across PIXIE and then, when I was Googling the words, "Primordial Inflation..." some links for PIPER came up too.  Fyi, PIPER is a balloon-borne instrument package that'll be scanning the skies for B-mode oscillations in the CMB.  These are the patterns that the BICEP2 team thought they'd found back in 2012.  Patterns which would have confirmed the existence of primordial gravitational waves coming from the Big Bang.  This would have been the smoking gun for Inflationary theory and an elegant confirmation that we do indeed inhabit an inflationary multiverse.  Alas, the BICEP team screwed up big time and mistook swirls of interstellar dust for the B-mode signal.  (I'm sure you recall that fiasco!)

 

Anyway...

The search is still on.  PIPER is up and running right now.  PIXIE looks to be in the proposal stage and so let's cross our fingers and hope it gets the necessary approval and funding to go ahead.  Please enjoy the material at the end of these links and please feel free to message me with any questions that pop into your mind.  I can 'get' some of this stuff, but not all of it.

 

All the best,

 

BAA (Mark)

 

https://pcos.gsfc.nasa.gov/physpag/presentations/physpag-meeting4/Kogut_IPSAG_WedPM.pdf

 

https://asd.gsfc.nasa.gov/pixie/

 

https://arxiv.org/abs/1105.2044

 

https://room.eu.com/news/will-piper-be-successful-in-confirming-inflation-theory

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

As far as confirmation, this is what we were following and watching for new developments. I aim to stay abreast on all of this myself now going forward to see how it unravels and evolves. The point being is that the human mind is capable of conceiving ways in which to verify these things in various ways. The infinite replication paradox follows behind certain confirmations as a necessary extension of the factors being confirmed. Our limitations don't necessarily keep us from making these logical and necessary deductions about the cosmos. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
Quote

 


1. The only branch of the sciences that employs proofs is math, whereas every other branch employs the best possible explanation according to the available evidence.

2.  Inflationary theory is the best possible explanation of the evolution of the early universe, according to the available evidence.

3.  Inflation is not a one-off event but a never-ending process that began an indefinitely long time before it 'inflated' our part of the universe.

4. The internal logic of physics tell us that inflation makes stars, planets and people in a finite number of patterns.

5.  Since inflation has a limited (finite) number of patterns in which to make these things, the longer it continues making them, the more it repeats these patterns.

6.  Therefore, once inflation begins the pattern Christians refer to as the fine-tuning of the universe will be repeated over and over again.

7.  Therefore, once inflation begins the pattern Christians refer to as intelligently designed life will be repeated over and over again.

8.  Therefore, once inflation begins the finely-tuned, intelligently-designed pattern known as planet Earth will be repeated over and over again.

9.  Therefore, once inflation begins the patterns we call ourselves will be repeated over and over again.

10.  Therefore, the Christian apologetic argument for only one finely-tuned, intelligently-designed Earth, populated by unique individuals who are saved by Jesus Christ's one-and-only sacrifice is refuted by inflationary theory.
 

 

 

I pulled this from the LD thread that Disilluioned linked. 

 

He goes into more detail about how these pocket universes are not a fixed beginning, but simply block out the ability for any observer within an inflating pocket universe to observe the conditions that preceded it's inflationary period. That's more or less where we're at right now with these questions of christians and claims of a fixed beginning. Another area of interest is the size of the universe which Mark illustrated well in another thread. I need to figure where it was. How our observable universe would be but a small square on the face of much larger area of universe transcending any observable abilities as it fades away into the distance. That spoke directly to the issue of a center of the universe and how it's not possible to locate one, let alone have christians thinking that the bibles correct for portraying earth as the center. No fixed beginning, no fixed center. Both these arguments destroy the bible from the outset as of Genesis 1:1. Mainly because whole idea of a beginning, and the earth as center, stems from Genesis 1:1 where the first things created are the "heavens" and "earth." A universe with the unformed earth at it's center. Both horribly incorrect in the face of science. 

 

It would be nice to consolidate all of his relevant posts in a one, two, three step type of order of presenting the total argument. 

 

Now WLC, in his arrogance, has pointed out in speeches that the old myths never had any fixed beginnings. And then proceeds to suggest that bible is unique in that way, not only unique but more sophisticated and more correct because of Genesis 1:1 lining up with the BBT and having a beginning. But that was a very short lived period for BBT that he's reaching for with his apologetic's. The way it works it out here is that the old pagan myths are more in tune with modern science than Genesis 1:1, and in fact, Genesis 1:1 is far less sophisticated than the old pagan myths because of it's assertion of a fixed beginning. WLC is holding up his worst failure as his greatest triumph. 

 

Now I can see room for an apologetic angle to emerge from this. 

 

They may want to reinterpret Genesis 1:1 and say that technically it doesn't speak about what came before god creating the heavens and earth, so perhaps god only wanted to disclose to us the relevant history of our specific pocket universe from the point of it's own big bang forward. But that would of course lead to a domino effect that would unravel nearly all previous christian belief in various ways, as it continues to ravel. We could explore the possibility of unraveling where this sort of apologetic position would lead in order to stay abreast on what we may find ourselves arguing as they try and evolve and adapt to the new arguments. 

 

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Alright, I’ve read Guth’s paper that I linked to above, and also reviewed some other material about inflation in an attempt to brush up on this. Full disclosure time: I’m not, in any sense, an expert here. Disagreement with and critiques of what I’m about to say are more than welcome.

 

I learned a few things from reading Guth’s paper that I didn’t understand before. One significant thing that I learned is that when he speaks of “eternal inflation” Guth is not holding that inflation is eternal in the past. He is merely positing that once the process starts it will never stop. In other words, inflation is supposed to be eternal in the future, but not the past. This is stated categorically in section 6 of the paper, at the top of page 14:

 

“If the universe can be eternal into the future, is it possible that it is also eternal into the past? Here I will describe a recent theorem which shows, under plausible assumptions, that the answer to this question is no.”

 

Of course he then goes on the describe the theorem in some detail, and it gets fairly technical. But there are some interesting tidbits towards the end of this section. He writes that “there is no reason to conclude that an eternally inflating model must have a unique beginning…” (p 16, emphasis mine) and that “an eternally inflating model of the type usually assumed...cannot be complete” (p 16). In his conclusion, on page 17, he writes “under mild assumptions the inflating region must have a past boundary, and that new physics (other than inflation) is needed to describe what happens at this boundary.”

 

This is of significant interest to me for a number of reasons. First, if I’m reading this correctly, it seems to me that under inflation we are obligated to take the view that the multiverse is not past-eternal. It seems that this might leave the door open for theists to say “aha! There was a beginning! We've been right all along!”, but I don’t think that this would be the correct conclusion to draw. What Guth is saying is that there needs to be a past boundary, but inflationary theory says nothing about what happens at this boundary. So the door is open, under inflation, for some sort of quantum creation event, some other kind of physical “beginning”, or even for the hand of God. But either way, even if this past-boundary may be described as “a beginning”, I don’t think it can be properly described as “the beginning”. I’d welcome your guys’ thoughts about this.

 

I want to pursue this idea of a past-bounded eternal inflationary model for a moment though, to try and illustrate one of the issues I have with infinite replication. Specifically, I want to look at part of Mark’s argument from the Den (ie, the 10 points that Josh copied above). Consider #6-9. I want to draw attention to the use of the words “will be”. Note the future tense. The argument is not that infinite replication (or any replication) has already occurred. It is that, given an infinite amount of inflationary time, replication, and ultimately, infinite replication will eventually occur. I don’t think that this is correct for a number of reasons, but in the interest of brevity I’m only going to discuss one here. I’ll get into the others in future posts if the topic is of interest.

 

Consider that since inflation is past-bounded, it may be said that we exist at a specific point in inflationary time. Let the total amount of inflationary time that has passed since the past boundary be T. We don’t know, and can’t know the value of T, but the fact that inflation is past-bounded implies that T is not infinite. It may be very large, but it is definitely not infinite. But this means that we can’t have infinite replication yet. To have infinite replication, we would need to have had an infinite number of events occurring in a finite amount of inflationary time. I can’t see how this is possible. But here is the real problem: fast forward as far as you like to some other time T2. T2 may be significantly larger than T. But inflationary time is still past-bounded, so T2 is still definitely finite. So again, no infinite replication. Keep going forward as many times and as far as you want. You will never reach a time when infinite replication has actually occurred, because no matter how far forward in time you go, the total amount of inflationary time which has elapsed is still finite. So this means that there will literally never be a time when infinite replication has occurred. But if there never will be a time when infinite replication has occurred, then it is incorrect to say that it will occur.

 

There is more that can be said, but I want to see what you guys have to say about this before I go further down this road.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
8 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

Another area of interest is the size of the universe which Mark illustrated well in another thread. I need to figure where it was. How our observable universe would but a small square on the face of much larger area of universe transcending any observable abilities as it fades away into the distance. That spoke directly to the issue of a center of the universe and how it's not possible to locate one, let alone have christians thinking that the bibles correct for portraying earth as the center. No fixed beginning, no fixed center.

 

I am pretty sure Mark and I went through this at the beginning of this thread. It was one of the eureka moments I had - realising that the universe was like being in the middle of the ocean where in every direction you look it appeared like you were in the centre - but your weren't because you were limited by your observable horizon.

 

8 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

It would be nice to consolidate all of his relevant posts in a one, two, three step type of order of presenting the total argument. 

 

That's the goal

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
9 hours ago, disillusioned said:

I want to pursue this idea of a past-bounded eternal inflationary model for a moment though, to try and illustrate one of the issues I have with infinite replication. Specifically, I want to look at part of Mark’s argument from the Den (ie, the 10 points that Josh copied above).

 

He and I were into the past eternal discussion a while back, it may been several years ago. But I remember having it. That's an issue unto itself. And requires some searching to try and locate all of the info relevant to that question. 

9 hours ago, disillusioned said:

What Guth is saying is that there needs to be a past boundary, but inflationary theory says nothing about what happens at this boundary. So the door is open, under inflation, for some sort of quantum creation event, some other kind of physical “beginning”, or even for the hand of God. But either way, even if this past-boundary may be described as “a beginning”, I don’t think it can be properly described as “the beginning”. I’d welcome your guys’ thoughts about this.

 

Mark's #3 speaks to this. I know that he had moved beyond what you're talking about in the above over the last few years from when we first had the past eternal discussions. And he had found that inflation is not a one off event, but a never ending process that began an indefinitely long time before it inflated our observable universe, caused the big bang. I'd have to find the citation work behind point #3. But I know that it's due to his further reading and getting deeper into the issue. 

 

He and I got into this stuff because I have philosophical issues pertaining to infinity and eternity.

 

I feel that there's no alternative to past eternal scenarios of some type, mainly due to the fact that any given fixed beginning one could offer will always beg the question of what existed before that fixed beginning. It's very simple and cut and dry from the philosophical angle. And it's the same issue Bruno found himself pondering with his arrow thought experiment. This goes back to the need for something to have been past eternal and how Bruno confronted the problem.  

 

If not, then we could find ourselves in a situation where we find a beginning. And then realize another beginning had to have come before that. But then face another beginning before that. And pretty soon we're back to square one with a 'past eternal' series of beginnings, which, never really were fixed beginnings and everything gets washed out into a necessarily infinite past.

 

Between several years ago and this last year, Mark changed from taking the direction of Guth's quotes on the past eternal issue, to sort of coming at it from what we see in point #3. And I'm not sure exactly what it was that changed his perspective. But he didn't change any perspective without a scientific citation. So I'd have to go looking for what prompted the change. 

 

 

I know that Mark seemed to agree with this video from AronRa. The relevant parts start around 5:25

 

The source material has to be eternal in some way, according to this line of reasoning. Which is right in line with the philosophical direction I've described above. We could have myriad universes sprouting into being and then repeating the process again and again, but all of the inflating would have come from pre existing source material transferring from one place to another. No creation ex nihilo.

 

That's another issue at play here which Mark and I had discussed over the years. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
6 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

I am pretty sure Mark and I went through this at the beginning of this thread. It was one of the eureka moments I had - realising that the universe was like being in the middle of the ocean where in every direction you look it appeared like you were in the centre - but your weren't because you were limited by your observable horizon.

 

 

That's the goal

 

Maybe I should add another video from Aron Ra about Genesis as we go along here: 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
9 hours ago, disillusioned said:

Consider that since inflation is past-bounded, it may be said that we exist at a specific point in inflationary time. Let the total amount of inflationary time that has passed since the past boundary be T. We don’t know, and can’t know the value of T, but the fact that inflation is past-bounded implies that T is not infinite. It may be very large, but it is definitely not infinite. But this means that we can’t have infinite replication yet. To have infinite replication, we would need to have had an infinite number of events occurring in a finite amount of inflationary time. I can’t see how this is possible. But here is the real problem: fast forward as far as you like to some other time T2. T2 may be significantly larger than T. But inflationary time is still past-bounded, so T2 is still definitely finite. So again, no infinite replication. Keep going forward as many times and as far as you want. You will never reach a time when infinite replication has actually occurred, because no matter how far forward in time you go, the total amount of inflationary time which has elapsed is still finite. So this means that there will literally never be a time when infinite replication has occurred. But if there never will be a time when infinite replication has occurred, then it is incorrect to say that it will occur.

 

There is more that can be said, but I want to see what you guys have to say about this before I go further down this road.

 

How does this work with the notion that the source material must be eternal, as Aron Ra pointed out? 

 

And the issue of an indefinite past, as Mark was alluding to? 

 

I'm reading through the LD thread which is started a mere few weeks before his passing. I completely missed that thread. It seems to address many of the questions you've raised in the above:  

 

 



A.  Our particular pocket universe is not all that there is.

B.  Our particular pocket universe is just one of many.

C.  Many pocket universes are being inflated right now and many more will be inflated in the future.  This is because inflation never ends.

D.  Because we have no special or privileged status over any other observers anywhere, we cannot lay claim to be living in the very first such universe to be inflated. 

E.  Doing that would violate the ground rules of GR and also violate the Copernican principle.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copernican_principle

F.  Since we cannot claim to be the very first observers in the very first pocket universe we must accept that the mediocrity of our status.

G. That many pocket universes and many other observers living within them have preceded us in the never-ending process of inflation.

 

If G is accepted, then we can use the ten listed points about inflation to gain a better understanding of how many pocket universes have preceded ours.  

That is, we can gain a glimpse of just what... 'an indefinitely-long period of inflation' ...really means.  That would be the next step, once G is accepted.  But for now I'll pause and field any questions you guys might have.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

I'm still scouring through his points and position taking.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
On 1/17/2018 at 1:05 PM, disillusioned said:

At the moment, and after reading both this thread and the LvCU thread, one of the things I'm interested in looking at is the potential limits of science. I'm curious about whether or not we can identify what those limits are, and what methods we might use to approach the questions that science can't treat. I'm wondering about what Josh has termed "mysticism" in the other thread. This is not something that I know a great deal (or anything, really) about, so I'd love the opportunity to explore it.

 

In the LvCU thread, Mark specifically said "I really can't see a time where we'll acquire the ultimate knowledge of reality itself." So he didn't think that science ever can or will answer all questions.

 

However I'm not sure anything else can either. I don't know of any other method that is as reliable as science.

 

Thus I am skeptical of using other methods, especially with terms of mysticism in it. What specifically is meant by mysticism? Once we are passed the limits of science aren't we just guessing?

 

15 hours ago, disillusioned said:

I want to pursue this idea of a past-bounded eternal inflationary model for a moment though, to try and illustrate one of the issues I have with infinite replication. Specifically, I want to look at part of Mark’s argument from the Den (ie, the 10 points that Josh copied above). Consider #6-9. I want to draw attention to the use of the words “will be”. Note the future tense. The argument is not that infinite replication (or any replication) has already occurred. It is that, given an infinite amount of inflationary time, replication, and ultimately, infinite replication will eventually occur. I don’t think that this is correct for a number of reasons, but in the interest of brevity I’m only going to discuss one here. I’ll get into the others in future posts if the topic is of interest.

 

Consider that since inflation is past-bounded, it may be said that we exist at a specific point in inflationary time. Let the total amount of inflationary time that has passed since the past boundary be T. We don’t know, and can’t know the value of T, but the fact that inflation is past-bounded implies that T is not infinite. It may be very large, but it is definitely not infinite. But this means that we can’t have infinite replication yet. To have infinite replication, we would need to have had an infinite number of events occurring in a finite amount of inflationary time. I can’t see how this is possible. But here is the real problem: fast forward as far as you like to some other time T2. T2 may be significantly larger than T. But inflationary time is still past-bounded, so T2 is still definitely finite. So again, no infinite replication. Keep going forward as many times and as far as you want. You will never reach a time when infinite replication has actually occurred, because no matter how far forward in time you go, the total amount of inflationary time which has elapsed is still finite. So this means that there will literally never be a time when infinite replication has occurred. But if there never will be a time when infinite replication has occurred, then it is incorrect to say that it will occur.

 

There is more that can be said, but I want to see what you guys have to say about this before I go further down this road.

 

I would agree with what you have said here. It seems to me, that in order to have something infinite then it must not be past-bounded. Essentially WLC and co refer to this as the un-caused cause. To be infinite wouldn't whatever is infinite have to be not bounded by time?

 

Maybe we should define infinite. What is infinity (And beyond?)

 

Mark talked about finite patterns being repeated infinitely - I take it to mean once it occurs it will continue to occur with no ending. Is that a fair definition? In which case it doesn't preclude being past bounded?

 

It's maybe not so much that say a particular pattern is repeated umpteenth gazillion times which as disillusioned says "Is very large" but the fact that the repeating pattern will never end is what makes it infinite (Not necessarily that it might be a very very large number which we cannot comprehend.) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

I've attached Mark's last argument thread to my signature line for the time being. 

 

As I'm reading through I can see that what we're talking about in terms of consolidating his arguments in order has already been done, by Mark, literally during his final month alive. I'm a little taken back by that. But that looks like what I'm reading through. He's going point by point and then addressing the objections one by one. He's left citation, in order, point by point. He couldn't have known that he was going to die in an accident, but it's as if he did and consolidated his position in one neat little package before he did. Very odd, as I said, I'm a little taken back reading through it all. 

 

And I think that the thread answers some of the questions that you guys are still asking, to be honest. So it's worth reading through carefully again. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 17/01/2018 at 8:03 PM, Joshpantera said:

 

Mark's #3 speaks to this. I know that he had moved beyond what you're talking about in the above over the last few years from when we first had the past eternal discussions. And he had found that inflation is not a one off event, but a never ending process that began an indefinitely long time before it inflated our observable universe, caused the big bang. I'd have to find the citation work behind point #3. But I know that it's due to his further reading and getting deeper into the issue. 

 

Yes, I accept his point #3. The thing that I have issue with is that "indefinitely" does not mean the same thing as "infinitely". More on this in the post which will follow this one.

 

Quote

He and I got into this stuff because I have philosophical issues pertaining to infinity and eternity.

 

I feel that there's no alternative to past eternal scenarios of some type, mainly due to the fact that any given fixed beginning one could offer will always beg the question of what existed before that fixed beginning. It's very simple and cut and dry from the philosophical angle. And it's the same issue Bruno found himself pondering with his arrow thought experiment. This goes back to the need for something to have been past eternal and how Bruno confronted the problem.  

 

If not, then we could find ourselves in a situation where we find a beginning. And then realize another beginning had to have come before that. But then face another beginning before that. And pretty soon we're back to square one with a 'past eternal' series of beginnings, which, never really were fixed beginnings and everything gets washed out into a necessarily infinite past.

 

Ah. I see where you're coming from here. I have a few thoughts about this, which are also relevant to the Aron Ra video and the notion of eternal source material, but I'm not sure that I can coherently represent them. Please bear with me while I stumble my way through this.

 

Let's take Guth's view of a past-bounded inflationary model as given for a moment. He is clear in his paper that we don't know what happens as we approach this boundary. One possible way of thinking about this is to say that perhaps as we wind the clock back we can get arbitrarily close to the boundary, but never quite reach it. Under this view, time going backwards would asymptotically approach the boundary, but would not ever actually reach or cross it. Much like a graph of exponential decay. I actually quite like this view, and I've used it before to argue against the Kalam Cosmological argument. If time is just a facet of the universe (or inflationary multiverse, if you prefer), then unless there is a universe, there is no time. So even though it may be correct to say that the universe has a past-boundary in time, it can't really be said to have "begun" to exist. We can wind the clock back as far as we want, but we can't ever get to zero, because if we did then the clock would cease to exist. I think this gets us out of the need for ex-nihilo creation, because it means that, in a very real sense, the universe has always been here. I also think it lines up very well with what Aron Ra was saying in the video. But the problem is, I don't think that this actually gets us infinite time at any specific point. Take again the example of an exponential graph:

 

CNX_Precalc_Figure_04_01_0042.jpg

 

It's true that the graph continues infinitely in both directions, getting infinitely small in one and infinitely large in the other, but at no point on the graph is the y-value actually infinite. This is similar to what I said in my previous post about there never being a point where we actually have infinite time. So that's one possible way of approaching this.

 

Another way of getting around the ex nihilo issue is to embrace a quantum creation model. I've heard both Stephen Hawking and Lawrence Krauss discuss this. The idea is that if we go back far enough in time, the universe collapses to the size of a quantum particle. Quantum particles pop into and out of existence, un-caused, all the time. All that is necessary is for the quantum vacuum to exist, and we can escape the ex nihilo nihil fit issue. Now, I have heard some people argue that the quantum vacuum is not nothing, but I would counter that it may well be. We have no evidence at all that it is possible to not have a quantum vacuum. So it may be possible for the universe/inflationary multiverse to have a definite beginning and yet not be caused, and for there to be no "prior beginning".

 

The third thing I want to say is that I'm not sure that the question you mention, of what existed "before" a given fixed beginning is actually coherent. As I argued above, time is just a facet of the universe. If the universe had a beginning, then time had a beginning with it. The notion of "before" relies on the notion of "time". So I don't think that the question "what came before the universe?" actually makes much sense. Unless there is a universe, there is no "before".

 

Here's hoping at least some of that made sense.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My sincerest apologies for the following wall of text. TL;DR: I like math, infinity is cool, and I don't think infinite replication is a necessary conclusion.

 

Quote

Maybe we should define infinite. What is infinity (And beyond?)

 

Mark talked about finite patterns being repeated infinitely - I take it to mean once it occurs it will continue to occur with no ending. Is that a fair definition? In which case it doesn't preclude being past bounded?

 

It's maybe not so much that say a particular pattern is repeated umpteenth gazillion times which as disillusioned says "Is very large" but the fact that the repeating pattern will never end is what makes it infinite (Not necessarily that it might be a very very large number which we cannot comprehend.) 

 

I said in my last post that I think that "infinite" and "indefinite" mean different things. In this post I want to elaborate on this, and also to talk a bit more about some of the issues surrounding infinity.

 

Let's start with a definition of "infinite". Literally, the word means something like "limitless". This is the sense in which mathematicians and physicists usually use the word. "Indefinite", on the other hand, is usually used by mathematicians and physicists to mean something more like "variable", "unknown" or "arbitrary". It's a subtle difference, but a significant one. A couple examples might help to illustrate what I mean.

 

Let's think about the set of natural numbers. That is, the usual counting numbers, N={0, 1, 2, 3, 4, ...}. The set's lower bound is 0. (Actually, it has an infinite number of lower bounds, but its greatest lower bound is 0, so let's just use that, and call it the lower bound). But the number of elements of the set is infinite. This is because there is no largest number in the set. Whatever number we are at, there is always a "next one" which is larger. This is directly analogous to Guth's claim that inflationary time is bounded in the past, but not in the future. In precisely the same way, the set of natural numbers is bounded below, but not above.

 

In mathematics, the number of elements in a set is called that set's "cardinality". So one way of "defining" infinity might be as "the cardinality of the natural numbers". Things which are this sort of infinite are called "countably infinite". By contrast, let's look at "indefinite". Suppose x is a natural number. x is indefinite. It can be anything. But it is not infinite. It can be as large as we want, but it is still finite.

 

This is why I feel justified in saying that I accept Mark's #3, but reject the notion of inflation which began an infinitely long time ago. The statements "inflation began an indefinitely long time ago" and "inflation began an infinitely long time ago" are not equivalent.

 

Alright, back to infinity for a moment. What follows is something a digression, but it's a topic that I've always found to be absolutely fascinating, and the conclusion is relevant, I think. Humour me for a moment, if you will.

 

Let's go back to the natural numbers for a second, and also look at two other sets A={0, 2, 4, 6, 8, ...} and B={1, 3, 5, 7, ...} (ie, the odd and even natural numbers). Both A and B are proper subsets of N, but clearly both A and B have infinite cardinalities. We might be tempted to ask whether their cardinalities are the same, and whether the cardinality of each is less than the cardinality of N. The answer to the first question is "yes", and to the second question is "no". It turns out that the both A and B have exactly the same cardinality as the natural numbers. (This can be proven fairly easily by establishing bijections, pairwise, between the sets). But this means that there are exactly the same number of even numbers as there are of even and odd numbers combined. Somewhat counter-intuitive, but unarguably true.

 

Now let's go one step further and look at the set of real numbers, R. Colloquially defined, the set of real numbers is all the numbers, excluding those which involve taking the square root of a negative (the "complex" numbers). So the set of natural numbers is a subset of the real numbers. The real numbers also contains fractions, pi, the square root of 2, and so on. Clearly the cardinality of the real numbers is infinite. We might be tempted to ask if the cardinality of N is the same as the cardinality of R.

 

The answer is no. This was proven in a number of ways by Georg Cantor. My favourite proof is the diagonal argument.

 

This means that there are more real numbers than there are natural numbers, even though the cardinalities of both sets are infinite. It turns out that some infinities are bigger than others.

 

Mathematicians refer to all infinities which are "equal to" (more precisely, "in bijection with") the cardinality of the natural numbers as "countable" and all infinities which are "larger" than this as "uncountable". Then things really start to get interesting, but maybe only to me.

 

Ok, digression over. Back on topic.

 

One of the reasons why I'm not comfortable with accepting the infinite replication hypothesis is because I think it relies on a naive notion of infinity. Suppose we do have an infinite amount of time, and a finite number of patterns. Will these patterns necessarily be repeated infinitely? I don't know that the answer is necessarily "yes". "Yes" would be a very precise conclusion, built upon imprecise notions. What kind of infinity are we talking about here? Is it countable or uncountable? How is the calculation of the probabilities done? In Guth's paper he explicitly states that "we still do not know how to define probabilities in an eternally inflating spacetime" (p 17). If we don't know how to define probabilities, then how can we conclude that infinite replication has occurred, or even probably occurred? This is related to the counter-argument that I made in Mark's final thread from the Den. What it reduces to is that I'm not comfortable assigning a probability of "1" to an event for which no one apparently has any idea of how to properly calculate the probability. At base, I think this is an example of people getting carried away with their physics, and crossing beyond the purview of science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
13 hours ago, disillusioned said:

The third thing I want to say is that I'm not sure that the question you mention, of what existed "before" a given fixed beginning is actually coherent. As I argued above, time is just a facet of the universe. If the universe had a beginning, then time had a beginning with it. The notion of "before" relies on the notion of "time". So I don't think that the question "what came before the universe?" actually makes much sense. Unless there is a universe, there is no "before".

 

Here's hoping at least some of that made sense.

 

Thanks for this, I think I follow where you're going. It does address the Kalam argument of WLC. 

 

But let me just clarify another point of what Aron Ra laid out. Imagine a scenario where currently the black holes in our universe were taking matter, source material from our universe where space and time exist, and then ushering them into blowing out elsewhere creating little big bangs, or inflationary periods creating more universes. My issue with past eternal and an infinite past can be illustrated that way as well.

 

What is here, essentially originated somewhere else and then came here. And some of what is here will continue on and create something new. There's no way to fix a beginning to such a process. Beginnings, essentially, are merely a point a reference to map out and try and keep track of things, but are not literal in any sense according to this thought experiment. There's also no beginning for time, either, because just as time exists here, and the source material here being a product of the existence of time goes on to another dimension carrying it's own history of time with it, so too would a history of the existence of time elsewhere have traveled through to create our own dimension and experience of time here and now, intertwined with the source material that crossed over in order to create here and now. 

 

That's one way that the question of what came before the universe, or rather our universe can make sense. Because there would always be a "before." A before for space, time, material and existence in general regardless of our observable universe. 

 

And if there could have always been a "before" for space, time, matter and existence in general, would that not constitute an infinite past at the base of truth seeking? 

 

"Very deep is the well of the past, shall we not call it bottomless?"

 

Because if the process of the existence of space, time, and matter ever did spontaneously emerge from true or absolute nothingness, then we face another deeper question. 

 

Did absolute nothingness exist infinitely in the past, bottomless, and then just spontaneously emerge into something at some given point, and then continue moving forward to create and more and more of something leading to our existence and experience of something-ness now? 

 

Or did the existence of absolute nothingness at all, have it's own beginning as the 'end' of a prior something making the absolute nothingness not infinite in the past, not bottomless? 

 

But then again, if so, what could be said of the exchange between the existence of something, to absolute nothing, to something again going back into the past, the past of existence itself? 

 

Would that not then lay out a never beginning and infinite past in an of itself, either way we turn? 

 

1)..............something > nothing > something > nothing................

 

2)..........something > something > something > something...........

 

3)..................................nothing > something..............................

 

This is Bruno applied to today. 

 

And further more, according to the above, what would that mean to the issue of replication? 

 

In this never beginning, never ending process of existence, wouldn't things repeat themselves or would they always emerge completely fresh and new for the first time ever, in all of eternity, over and over again each time something comes into being during such a boundless and limitless process? 

 

And furthermore, could that outline why the past is indefinite and can't be touched on by the physics? 

 

These are the places that I went with Mark several years ago. 

 

And he emerged from it with a different perspective from when he entered into it. Now I have to figure out what exactly it was that he found that changed his mind. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Josh,

 

Excellent post, some really great thoughts. I think I'm starting to understand where you and Mark went before.

 

Quote

But let me just clarify another point of what Aron Ra laid out. Imagine a scenario where currently the black holes in our universe were taking matter, source material from our universe where space and time exist, and then ushering them into blowing out elsewhere creating little big bangs, or inflationary periods creating more universes. My issue with past eternal and an infinite past can be illustrated that way as well.

 

That’s one possible way of thinking about what a black hole might be, but that’s not really where science leads us. The scientific view is that a black hole is just an area of spacetime with such a strong gravitational field that nothing can escape it. They’re not actually “holes”, just very dense matter. As such, they don't really need to lead to anywhere.

 

Now, some people like to wax poetic, as Aron Ra was doing in the video, about matter being sucked into black holes and blown out elsewhere, but this is not actually science. I had a number of very detailed discussions with some of my professors in university about this exact topic, and all of them were of the view that this is a nice idea, but it’s not testable. It may be interesting to think about, but to call it science is to go too far. The same can be said, by the way, about the notion that I presented previously about the universe possibly beginning as a quantum particle, and springing into existence out of nothing. A nice idea, and in this case, perhaps an idea which solves a problem and is, therefore, useful, but not testable and hence not science. Moreover, I think that the idea of black holes in our universe emitting matter in other universes and possibly causing new “big bangs” is not only not science, it is also not particularly useful because it raises more questions than it answers. And all the questions that it raises would seem to me to be unanswerable. I’m always hesitant to go down that kind of a road, unless we he have a very clear common understanding that what we are discussing is basically guesswork.

 

 

Quote

What is here, essentially originated somewhere else and then came here. And some of what is here will continue on and create something new. There's no way to fix a beginning to such a process. Beginnings, essentially, are merely a point a reference to map out and try and keep track of things, but are not literal in any sense according to this thought experiment. There's also no beginning for time, either, because just as time exists here, and the source material here being a product of the existence of time goes on to another dimension carrying it's own history of time with it, so too would a history of the existence of time elsewhere have traveled through to create our own dimension and experience of time here and now, intertwined with the source material that crossed over in order to create here and now. 

 

That's one way that the question of what came before the universe, or rather our universe can make sense. Because there would always be a "before." A before for space, time, material and existence in general regardless of our observable universe. 

 

And if there could have always been a "before" for space, time, matter and existence in general, would that not constitute an infinite past at the base of truth seeking? 

 

I’m not sure I agree with this. I suppose it depends what you mean by “here” and “elsewhere”. I would agree that the material that makes up my body, for example, came from elsewhere in the universe, but I’m not sure that I would take it further than that. Again, as I said before, I don’t see a real reason to think that the universe began to exist in the usual sense. I think it has a past boundary in time, but I don’t think that is the same thing as a beginning. So yes, I would agree that there is no beginning for time (as I would say that it is merely a facet of the universe), but I don’t think that this necessarily means that time requires source material from elsewhere. It is possible, in other words, to think of these things as having always been here, but not as having been here for an infinite amount of time.

 

Quote

 

"Very deep is the well of the past, shall we not call it bottomless?"

 

Because if the process of the existence of space, time, and matter ever did spontaneously emerge from true or absolute nothingness, then we face another deeper question. 

 

Did absolute nothingness exist infinitely in the past, bottomless, and then just spontaneously emerge into something at some given point, and then continue moving forward to create and more and more of something leading to our existence and experience of something-ness now? 

 

Or did the existence of absolute nothingness at all, have it's own beginning as the 'end' of a prior something making the absolute nothingness not infinite in the past, not bottomless? 

 

But then again, if so, what could be said of the exchange between the existence of something, to absolute nothing, to something again going back into the past, the past of existence itself? 

 

Would that not then lay out a never beginning and infinite past in an of itself, either way we turn? 

 

1)..............something > nothing > something > nothing................

 

2)..........something > something > something > something...........

 

3)..................................nothing > something..............................

 

This is Bruno applied to today. 

 

I agree that this is one way of thinking about this issue. I’m just not sure that it can be called “correct”. It’s a giant “maybe” for me, and I’m not sure that it could ever be otherwise. This is not only because I think these questions are beyond the reach of science, but also because I actually think that these questions might be outside the reach of human reason entirely.

 

We are approaching a discussion of some kind of Ultimate Reality here. But the problem is, the only reality that we know we have is the one we evolved in. Our minds are the product of evolution in this universe. Reason is something that our minds have evolved the ability to do. What reason is there to think that our modes of thought should be potent enough to allow us to describe not only this universe as it actually is, but to go further still and reach an accurate description of Ultimate Reality? I’m inclined to answer “none at all”. But this renders the above interesting, but not answerable. I think our reach, here, may have exceeded our ability to grasp.

 

Quote

And further more, according to the above, what would that mean to the issue of replication? 

 

In this never beginning, never ending process of existence, wouldn't things repeat themselves or would they always emerge completely fresh and new for the first time ever, in all of eternity, over and over again each time something comes into being during such a boundless and limitless process? 

 

And furthermore, could that outline why the past is indefinite and can't be touched on by the physics? 

 

I'm afraid I can't answer this authoritatively.

 

I can see that this is one way of approaching the issue. My preferred view is still one of an unreachable past-boundary in time, which allows me to solve the question of a beginning by saying that there has always been something, but it hasn’t been here for an infinite amount of time. Just as the graph of 2is always positive, never infinite, and has a greatest lower bound. But I can see the appeal of what you are writing here as well. But even on this view, to the question of repetition, I would still have to say “I don’t know”. As I wrote at the end of my long and wearisome post on infinity, I would still want to see how the probabilities are being computed before endorsing one side or the other.

 

Quote

These are the places that I went with Mark several years ago. 

 

And he emerged from it with a different perspective from when he entered into it. Now I have to figure out what exactly it was that he found that changed his mind. 

 

Again, thanks very much for sharing this. I find it extremely stimulating to think about.

 

I just want to say that despite my hesitance to embrace it as probable, I actually kind of like the idea of infinite repetition. Related ideas spring out of the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, which was one of the reasons that I decided to study physics in university. So please don't think that I'm somehow foundationally opposed to it. I just don't see that the arguments in its favour are entirely convincing. Still, I can see that it could be true.

 

I want to explore where this leaves us, but I'm out of time for the moment. I'll be back later.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
On 1/19/2018 at 4:35 PM, disillusioned said:

That’s one possible way of thinking about what a black hole might be, but that’s not really where science leads us. The scientific view is that a black hole is just an area of spacetime with such a strong gravitational field that nothing can escape it. They’re not actually “holes”, just very dense matter. As such, they don't really need to lead to anywhere.

 

Now, some people like to wax poetic, as Aron Ra was doing in the video, about matter being sucked into black holes and blown out elsewhere, but this is not actually science. I had a number of very detailed discussions with some of my professors in university about this exact topic, and all of them were of the view that this is a nice idea, but it’s not testable. It may be interesting to think about, but to call it science is to go too far. The same can be said, by the way, about the notion that I presented previously about the universe possibly beginning as a quantum particle, and springing into existence out of nothing. A nice idea, and in this case, perhaps an idea which solves a problem and is, therefore, useful, but not testable and hence not science. Moreover, I think that the idea of black holes in our universe emitting matter in other universes and possibly causing new “big bangs” is not only not science, it is also not particularly useful because it raises more questions than it answers. And all the questions that it raises would seem to me to be unanswerable. I’m always hesitant to go down that kind of a road, unless we he have a very clear common understanding that what we are discussing is basically guesswork.

 

What we are referring to is the notion of a black hole - white hole exchange, or perhaps something similar. I called it a thought experiment because that's about all that it can be presented as, certainly not as confirmed fact, but an interesting way of looking for possible answers. I'll leave another video specifically about how such an exchange could be confirmed by science one day. You can narrow it down to around 7:00 forward, with 8:00 forward addressing dark matter, dark energy, black hole - white hole issues and so on: 

 

 

My position to Mark has always been one of not relying too much on any one given cosmological model, due to the necessary changing of the models through time as more observation and confirmations unfold. So I was more firm into the philosophical angles than the physics for that reason. Mark, preferred the physics. So we differed a bit in that way. But that's not to distract from my interest in the evolving cosmological models. My interest has been in how the leading models have evolved in the direction of so called infinite and eternal models more so than the finite confined ways of thinking just previously. That's what our last PM was about, how the two leading models are essentially infinite and eternal based. And I think that's because of the underlying necessity, philosophically, to account for the unavoidable bottomless past we likely spring out of. 

 

On 1/19/2018 at 4:35 PM, disillusioned said:

I’m not sure I agree with this. I suppose it depends what you mean by “here” and “elsewhere”. I would agree that the material that makes up my body, for example, came from elsewhere in the universe, but I’m not sure that I would take it further than that. Again, as I said before, I don’t see a real reason to think that the universe began to exist in the usual sense. I think it has a past boundary in time, but I don’t think that is the same thing as a beginning. So yes, I would agree that there is no beginning for time (as I would say that it is merely a facet of the universe), but I don’t think that this necessarily means that time requires source material from elsewhere. It is possible, in other words, to think of these things as having always been here, but not as having been here for an infinite amount of time.

 

That's interesting. We're probably just trying to describe the same general thing differently. My whole expression was just one way of illustrating how something like time may have always existed with no fixed beginning, along side of the existence of material. Another way would be to imagine bubbles spontaneously emerging, each with space, material and time involved. If those bubbles have always been bubbling up, then space, material and time would also have always been bubbling up and no one emerging bubble would represent a fixed "beginning" for space, material or time. Just another way to address apologist's trying to point to science for a fixed beginning to shoe horn Genesis 1:1 into. 

 

On 1/19/2018 at 4:35 PM, disillusioned said:

We are approaching a discussion of some kind of Ultimate Reality here. But the problem is, the only reality that we know we have is the one we evolved in. Our minds are the product of evolution in this universe. Reason is something that our minds have evolved the ability to do. What reason is there to think that our modes of thought should be potent enough to allow us to describe not only this universe as it actually is, but to go further still and reach an accurate description of Ultimate Reality? I’m inclined to answer “none at all”. But this renders the above interesting, but not answerable. I think our reach, here, may have exceeded our ability to grasp.

 

This is the mysticism of science and philosophy that I spoke of in the limited understanding thread. 

 

Mystical, because we're dealing in terms of the underlying "mystery of existence."

 

It's a perpetual mystery that's essentially unsolvable. Existence just is, it just exists with no fixed reason or meaning for doing so. The best attempt at trying to answer the question of why does anything exist in the first place, seems to be to suggest that the absolute non-existence of anything at all, in any way, is impossible. In order words, if anything exists now, then something, in some way, had to have always existed leading to the existence of anything now. I don't know what better answer could be offered. And that doesn't even solve the mystery. 

 

Theologians have tried to use this general reasoning of something = something to support arguments for god, but it works just the same in a naturalist framework. The natural fabric and structure of existence itself, not a deity or god, must have always existed in some way in order to exist now, in order for one or an infinity of universes to exist now. There's no reason to assert that an eternal god had to have always existed when the fabric of existence itself always existing is a much simpler explanation, eliminating the need to assert an eternal god in the first place. But that's a digression to the point I'm driving at. I just wanted to clarify that what I'm talking about does not help or support theistic belief in any way. And I've taken a few apologists there. 

 

It keeps going back to infinite regress. And more importantly, a necessary and natural oriented infinite regress. How can that be? How can something regress infinitely and never really have begun? 

 

The better question is how can it not have? 

 

And the mind has to just accept it as essentially an unsolvable mystery. Just like that, natural existence in and of itself completely replaces any possible need for a god that primitive minds once conceived of as necessary, leading to theology and apologetic's. It cuts the foundation of theistic assertions right off at the base of it. All of this, the whole thing speaks to the point of this thread and the christian apologists hell bent on trying to shoe horn their theological views into BBT, the issue of a singularity, claiming a fixed beginning for the universe, space, material and time, and the whole shabang.

 

Meanwhile I've been out of state all weekend and haven't even began to get caught up on following the trail of bread crumbs (citations) that Mark left us with in his final argument thread. So I'll keep working my way through it and see if I can get a handle on how it was organized and where to look for the answers that he might have given.....

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

What we are referring to is the notion of a black hole - white hole exchange, or perhaps something similar. I called it a thought experiment because that's about all that it can be presented as, certainly not as confirmed fact, but an interesting way of looking for possible answers. I'll leave another video specifically about how such an exchange could be confirmed by science one day. You can narrow it down to around 7:00 forward, with 8:00 forward addressing dark matter, dark energy, black hole - white hole issues and so on: 

 

Yes, I get what is being referred to. I watched that video as well, and it's interesting to think about, but as you say it's really just a thought experiment. More on this below.

 

23 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

My position to Mark has always been one of not relying too much on any one given cosmological model, due to the necessary changing of the models through time as more observation and confirmations unfold. So I was more firm into the philosophical angles than the physics for that reason. Mark, preferred the physics. So we differed a bit in that way. But that's not to distract from my interest in the evolving cosmological models. My interest has been in how the leading models have evolved in the direction of so called infinite and eternal models more so than the finite confined ways of thinking just previously. That's what our last PM was about, how the two leading models are essentially infinite and eternal based. And I think that's because of the underlying necessity, philosophically, to account for the unavoidable bottomless past we likely spring out of. 

 

Interesting perspective here.

 

I've never claimed to be a cosmologist, or even to be that informed about cosmology. I know a thing or two about physics, and a thing or two about math, and I'm quite interested in philosophy, but that's about the shape of it. Kaku's video, though, put me in mind of a problem that I came across a few years ago, and which I posed to Mark a couple of times. The problem first occurred to me after watching Lawrence Krauss' lecture "A Universe From Nothing".

 

 

I recommend it. It's a good watch. It's long though, and the issue I'm referring to arises right at the end of the lecture, from around the 50:00 mark to 53:30.

 

The problem I see is this: Krauss is arguing that modern cosmology has led us to the point where we are forced to recognize that we occupy a very special, very privileged place in spacetime. For the vast majority of the life of our universe, the observations that we can now make will be impossible. Scientists in the far future will be literally unable to access any evidence of the expansion of the universe, or of dark matter and energy, or of the CMB, etcetera, etcetera. Similarly, scientists from the past may have had access to other observational evidence which is now out of our reach.

 

There are two very important things that I have to say about this. The first is that it should serve as a reminder of the limits of science. In particular, it would behove us to remember that this entails that we can't be sure that our cosmology is correct now. We may already be in a position where our best science does not allow us to access a correct view of the cosmos. All we can do is build a model, according to the best evidence that is available now. But the model is almost definitely not "the right one". The second point I want to raise is, in my view, much more important. Modern cosmology is based on the Copernican principle. But apparently it has led us to the conclusion that we occupy a uniquely privileged position in spacetime, which is a direct violation of the Copernican principle! But if this is correct, then modern cosmology has undermined its own basis. I think this is very problematic.

 

What I draw from this is that we need to be very cautious. Above all, when it comes to science, we need to be pragmatic. Mark and I were essentially in agreement on this topic. We discussed exactly the above a few times, and where we wound up was at an agreement that we should trust science as long as it produces testable results. So if it works, then I trust it. But what Kaku is talking about in his video is not testable. Perhaps this should not be surprising. He is, after all, a string theorist, and they don't really do testable. In my view, though, if it isn't testable, then it isn't science. That doesn't mean we can't talk about it, but we need to be honest about what we're doing.

 

23 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

That's interesting. We're probably just trying to describe the same general thing differently. My whole expression was just one way of illustrating how something like time may have always existed with no fixed beginning, along side of the existence of material. Another way would be to imagine bubbles spontaneously emerging, each with space, material and time involved. If those bubbles have always been bubbling up, then space, material and time would also have always been bubbling up and no one emerging bubble would represent a fixed "beginning" for space, material or time. Just another way to address apologist's trying to point to science for a fixed beginning to shoe horn Genesis 1:1 into. 

 

I agree with this, so long as we don't claim that this it is science. I realize I'm repeating myself here, but I think it matters a great deal. This is because to present this as science is to claim that the view in question is objectively correct, when in fact we don't know that it is. In a sense, it would be making an appeal to false authority.

 

23 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

This is the mysticism of science and philosophy that I spoke of in the limited understanding thread. 

 

Mystical, because we're dealing in terms of the underlying "mystery of existence."

 

It's a perpetual mystery that's essentially unsolvable. Existence just is, it just exists with no fixed reason or meaning for doing so. The best attempt at trying to answer the question of why does anything exist in the first place, seems to be to suggest that the absolute non-existence of anything at all, in way, is impossible. In order words, if anything exists now, then something, in some way, had to have always existed leading to the existence of anything now. I don't what better answer could be offered. 

 

Theologians have tried to use this general reasoning of something = something to support arguments for god, but it works just the same in a naturalist framework. The natural fabric and structure of existence itself, not a deity or god, must have always existed in some way in order to exist now, in order for one or an infinity of universes to exist now. There's no reason to assert that an eternal god had to have always existed when the fabric of existence itself always existing is a much simpler explanation, eliminating the need to assert an eternal god in the first place. But that's a digression to the point I'm driving at. I just wanted to clarify that what I'm talking about does not help or support theistic belief in any way. And I've taken a few apologists there. 

 

It keeps going back to infinite regress. And more importantly, a necessary and natural oriented infinite regress. How can that be? How can something regress infinitely and never really have begun? 

 

The better question is how can it not have? 

 

And the mind has to just accept it as essentially an unsolvable mystery. Just like that, natural existence in and of itself completely replaces any possible need for a god that primitive minds once conceived of as necessary, leading to theology and apologetic's. It cuts the foundation of theistic assertions right off at the base of it. All of this, the whole thing speaks to the point of this thread and the christian apologists hell bent on trying to shoe horn their theological views into BBT, the issue of a singularity, claiming a fixed beginning for the universe, space, material and time, and the whole shabang.

 

I agree with this, and I also have to say that it is beautifully put.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
On 1/22/2018 at 7:56 PM, disillusioned said:

The problem I see is this: Krauss is arguing that modern cosmology has led us to the point where we are forced to recognize that we occupy a very special, very privileged place in spacetime. For the vast majority of the life of our universe, the observations that we can now make will be impossible. Scientists in the far future will be literally unable to access any evidence of the expansion of the universe, or of dark matter and energy, or of the CMB, etcetera, etcetera. Similarly, scientists from the past may have had access to other observational evidence which is now out of our reach.

 

Hahaha...

 

I like Krauss, he's a funny guy. I remember that lecture. But what I remembered was Dawkin's calling Krauss the ,"Woody Allen of Physics..." 

 

Now I'm sure Mark took issue with the notion of our occupying a privileged place in space time, due to the notion conflicting in some way with the Copernican Principle. Unless of course this represents an exception to the CP.

 

 Listening further, I see that Krauss addressed a Q&A question about inference, basically. How just as scientists knew atoms should exist way before they were observed because of the science showing that they should be there, so too does that general trend apply to a multiverse in the same way. Just as Mark argued on the basis of inference. That sort of supports the direction I was going in previously about how science can conceive of ways in which to confirm the existence of other universes, even if they are never observed directly or can never be observed directly. This is the optimism that I saw in Mark. 

 

On 1/22/2018 at 7:56 PM, disillusioned said:

There are two very important things that I have to say about this. The first is that it should serve as a reminder of the limits of science. In particular, it would behove us to remember that this entails that we can't be sure that our cosmology is correct now. We may already be in a position where our best science does not allow us to access a correct view of the cosmos. All we can do is build a model, according to the best evidence that is available now. But the model is almost definitely not "the right one". The second point I want to raise is, in my view, much more important. Modern cosmology is based on the Copernican principle. But apparently it has led us to the conclusion that we occupy a uniquely privileged position in spacetime, which is a direct violation of the Copernican principle! But if this is correct, then modern cosmology has undermined its own basis. I think this is very problematic.

 

Duderonomy may have been well advised to introduce the above into the limited knowledge thread. It would have been a quite clever angle to introduce. 

 

And that's why I saw it from both of their sides in different contexts. In the end, science is what it is, and can be problematic, but that in no way bolsters religion or puts it on an even playing field. We went around and around about this. I'm comfortable allowing for the above. It makes clear sense and it's very logical minded given the circumstances. I think that's why so many people here were a little resistant to Mark's piss and vinegar about inflationary theory and it's implications as a way of arguing against apologists. 

 

You really hit the nail on the head here, disillusioned. 

 

On 1/22/2018 at 7:56 PM, disillusioned said:

What I draw from this is that we need to be very cautious. Above all, when it comes to science, we need to be pragmatic. Mark and I were essentially in agreement on this topic. We discussed exactly the above a few times, and where we wound up was at an agreement that we should trust science as long as it produces testable results. So if it works, then I trust it. But what Kaku is talking about in his video is not testable. Perhaps this should not be surprising. He is, after all, a string theorist, and they don't really do testable. In my view, though, if it isn't testable, then it isn't science. That doesn't mean we can't talk about it, but we need to be honest about what we're doing.

 

This I'm not sure I follow, though. What is not testable? The part that I was referring to was where he was talking about gravitation readings inferring the existence of parallel universes. Much the same as Krauss was talking about ways of deducing these things through inference in his Q&A session. And Mark and I were discussing PIXIE and other methods for confirming these very things. Being that we live in the time that we live in, the space time that we live in and all, it seems that we're right on the heels of seeing some potentially heavy discoveries in the not so distance future. Simply because scientists are conceiving of ways in which to confirm things like parallel universes at this time and going forward. 

 

I suppose I see it no differently than the search for planets orbiting stars, and then earth-like planets. At one point it didn't seem very possible. Then as time went on aggressive efforts underway made for pretty rapidly evolving methodologies for seeking out and finding evidence of what previously didn't seem very possible. Simply put, I don't think the issue of parallel universes and such goes beyond the realm of what can be known. It's not as deep an issue as something like the mystery of why anything exists in the first place. I don't see it as forever out of reach when scientists are currently conceiving of ways of making confirmations. It seems more likely to me that what can be conceived of, can be known given the right circumstances. 

 

On 1/22/2018 at 7:56 PM, disillusioned said:

I agree with this, so long as we don't claim that this it is science. I realize I'm repeating myself here, but I think it matters a great deal. This is because to present this as science is to claim that the view in question is objectively correct, when in fact we don't know that it is. In a sense, it would be making an appeal to false authority.

 

It's philosophical. I don't know if it goes too far to call it philosophy of science? Perhaps philosophy about science? 

 

Our main point here is arguing with christian's. So I see both fronts, science and philosophy, as helpful in doing so. For a variety of reasons, in a variety of ways. 

 

These make sense, theirs don't make any sense at all. 

 

On 1/22/2018 at 7:56 PM, disillusioned said:

I agree with this, and I also have to say that it is beautifully put.

 

Thank you for saying. 

 

I guess the reason that I'll be pouring over Mark's citations in his final argument is to determine whether or not I think his citations do what he seemed to believe that they do. Your last post really illustrates some very over arching points that seem to consume the Genesis 1:1 argument from all sides. Mainly due to the uncertainty of science in general. The problematic issue of any given cosmological model not having it correct, at least entirely correct, weighs in heavy in this discussion for sure. I generally bow down to the issue of uncertainty more often than not, and show it honor because uncertainty is the final destination of many a truth seeking path. Especially as concerns the quest for Ultimate Reality and Absolute Truth. It all finally dissolves into a sea of uncertainty. 

 

And if that's the case, then perhaps you are completely right when it comes to the Genesis 1:1 argument. 

 

But, I think that if we focus on the philosophical problem of Genesis 1:1 and it's "creation ex nihilo," it's much firmer than basing it all on a particular cosmological model subject to change over time. And the inflationary model could be used as an aside, I would think, without loosing anything in the event of it changing. Because the philosophical angle I tend to think is unshakable, and perpetual in scope and depth. More of a rock of ages sort of truth than a sand foundation subject to change. 

 

I've been putting it to apologists for well over a decade now and none of them seem to be able to over come it - my replacing their eternal, self-existent god with a necessarily eternal, and self-existent natural realm of existence with no beginning or end. That alone makes nonsense out of Genesis 1:1 in my view. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.