Please test this. Thank you.

[bornagainathiest]

.

[LimitedGrip]

Can you expand on #4? What internal logic dictates that the number of patterns is finite? 

 

What I mean to say is, since matter cannot be created or destroyed, there is a finite amount of matter in the universe. Therefore, a finite amount of patterns can be produced. Perhaps spell it out a little more like that, instead of just saying the internal logic of physics dictates it. 

[sdelsolray]

Premise 5 is shaky with regards to repeating patterns.  You have not demonstrated that time continues indefinitely, or the frequency of repetition within a temporal setting, or that patterns equally repeat themselves (compared to other patterns being repeated).

[LimitedGrip]

5 minutes ago, sdelsolray said:

Premise 5 is shaky with regards to repeating patterns.  You have not demonstrated that time continues indefinitely, or the frequency of repetition within a temporal setting, or that patterns equally repeat themselves (compared to other patterns being repeated).

 

True, and since space is expanding, there is nothing to say that ALL patterns will repeat themselves. Indeed, at some point, wouldn't the energy in the universe be so spread out that stars, planets, and people cannot be formed? 

[bornagainathiest]

.

 

[sdelsolray]

Please provide empirical evidence of a "pocket universe" other than our own.

[bornagainathiest]

On 01/11/2017 at 3:39 PM, sdelsolray said:

.

 

 

 

[LimitedGrip]

2 hours ago, bornagainathiest said:

Thanks for your input and your patience, guys. 

 

Before I can move on to explain about the repetition of patterns I first need to explain how inflationary theory gives us an indefinitely long history of the universe and not one that begins 13.72 billion years ago.  When inflation was first formulated by Alan Guth and Andrei Linde in the early 80's, the following details were discovered about it.

 

1.  Once inflation begins, it never ends. 

2.  It inflates pocket universes that are at least a thousand times larger than the volume of our observable universe. 

3.  Once it begins, inflation accelerates exponentially, doubling and redoubling the number of the pocket universes it inflates very rapidly.

4.  The doubling time is of the order of 10^-34 seconds. (About a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second.)

5.  Any observers (like us) living inside a pocket universe would observe the same history as any other other observer, located in any other pocket universe.

6.  "The same history" means that each observer would conclude that for them, space and time began with the inflation of their own particular pocket universe.

7.  But this conclusion is misleading because all they are observing is the beginning of their particular pocket universe.

8.  It is the beginning of the entire inflationary process (and not the beginning of any pocket universe) that marks the true beginning of space and time.

9.  But it is impossible for any observer anywhere to observe this because each episode of inflation completely erases all trace of what preceded it.

10.  Each observer, isolated in their own pocket universe can only see back in time as far as their own particular Big Bang - the beginning of their own particular pocket universe.

 

Now, the above details about inflationary theory are the result of combining General Relativity (GR) with particle physics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity

Since GR is integral to inflation, the ground rules of GR must be followed at all times.  While almost everyone has heard of GR, what it says about the status of any observer is often overlooked and/or misunderstood.  In GR there is no fixed or absolute frame of reference for any observer (human or otherwise) anywhere or anywhen.  The status of all observers is relative to every other.  No observer can claim or assume that they observe any part of the universe from a special or privileged vantage point.  The status of all observers is exactly equal to all others.  This is because GR is 'general' and applies generally to all observers, equalizing their status everywhere and everywhen.

 

The result of taking this measure into account and applying it to ourselves in the context of the ten points listed above is as follows.

Just like any other observer in any other pocket universe, we observe space and time beginning with our own particular pocket universe.

Just like any other observer in any other pocket universe, we are denied any knowledge of what preceded the beginning of our own pocket universe.

Just like any other observer in any other pocket universe, we can only observe the effects of inflation within our own pocket universe.

Just like any other observer in any other pocket universe, we can use use our observations of these effects to understand the following.

 

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.

 

 

Ah, well, I can not critique this then. Cosmology is not my strong suit. Except to ask, what is the level of acceptance of this particular theory, and are there competing ones? 

[bornagainathiest]

On 01/11/2017 at 5:43 PM, LimitedGrip said:

.

 

[LimitedGrip]

16 minutes ago, bornagainathiest said:

 

Thanks for your openness and honesty, LG.

 

Inflation is generally accepted by most cosmologists and theoretical physicists as being a good enough working model. 

That said, it's also acknowledged as being incomplete and in need of further evidence.  Back in 2014 the BICEP2 team of astronomers claimed to have found the smoking gun that would have settled the issue and put inflation on very firm ground indeed.  However, they were mistaken and later had to retract their claim.  

 

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2015/feb/03/galactic-dust-sounds-death-knell-for-bicep2-gravitational-wave-claim

 

Yes, there certainly are competing theories and imho perhaps the most serious contender is Ekpyrotic theory.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekpyrotic_universe 

 

Also, there's an important point that I shouldn't fail to make in response to your questions.

By rights, a given theory should be accepted or ruled out solely on the basis of the evidence.  The number of scientists supporting a theory isn't a true indicator of it's validity.  If sheer weight of numbers made a theory correct, then science would proceed by persuasion and consensus of opinion and not by evidence.  Since scientists are human beings it's inevitable that their objectivity is sometimes clouded by matters other than just the evidence.  

 

For this reason I keep tabs on this site... http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/

Peter Woit is possibly the harshest critic of the kind of inference I've been proposing in this thread.  I try to pay close attention to his criticisms and to test my thinking about these matters too.  Hence this thread and my invitation to have my thinking tested to destruction by my peers. 

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

Thanks for the links. I didn't intend to appeal to consensus. I was just curious about the level of "competition" between theories, as I'm not familiar enough with the topic to make any conclusions about the evidence. And, I understand that inflation is pretty well supported, but was more curious about the support for the inference of the pocket universes--which is basically the multiverse theory, correct? Or is that something else?  I'll definitely take a look at your links. Thanks. 

[bornagainathiest]

On 01/11/2017 at 6:20 PM, LimitedGrip said:

. 

[LogicalFallacy]

4 hours ago, bornagainathiest said:

The many confirmed predictions made by inflationary theory give us confidence that it is the best explanation, not just for the origin of our pocket universe, but of all pocket universes.

 

Is this not a mistake of the kind made by religious folks? We have something that applies to a part, and therefore assumes it applies to the whole. This sounds like a composition fallacy.

 

It sounds similar to the argument everything that begins to exist has a cause > therefore god (To shorten the argument, I'm sure you know what I'm talking about here). The mistake made here by religious folks arguing the universe has a cause is that they take the fact that as far as we can tell everything ever tested has some cause. They then take this and say the universe as a whole therefore needed some cause. This is essentially a composition fallacy. All bricks in my wall is small, therefore my wall must be small. No the wall could be huge. Inferencing the whole from the parts can lead to incorrect conclusions.

 

So coming back to inflationary theory - while predictions match for conditions in our universe why should this be the case for any other universe? 

 

Thoughts?

[bornagainathiest]

On 01/11/2017 at 9:30 PM, LogicalFallacy said:

.

 

[LogicalFallacy]

2 hours ago, bornagainathiest said:

See the problem, LF?   Either we infer from the part to the whole or science ceases to function.  

 

Hi BAA

 

In each of your examples scientists are inferring from known data. My problem, and I guess the problem sdelsolray has, is that we have no data on any pocket universes. They are merely a hypothesis.

 

All of what you say holds true for OUR universe. However we cannot begin to say (IMO) that there are other universes, without first acquiring data. I think this faces the same problem as the arguments for God. While possible, without evidence its an unfalsifiable hypothesis. So if I was arguing this with you I'd say what I say to Christians: Demonstrate pocket universes exist then we will discuss the rest of your argument (I tell them demonstrate God exists... obviously)

 

I can see that your examples hold true for what we can observe. We can reasonably say there are other planets in M100 because we actually observe planets in our own universe and observe M100 also. We have not, and by your own admission cannot observe another pocket universe. I would say if you get to argue pocket universes, the religious person gets to argue God.

 

I would hope that further research actually can give us some solid data for this.

 

That's my problems with this argument. Now I'm clearly nowhere qualified to dissect inflationary theory so my objections are merely layman arguments and may simply suffer from ignorance. However pretend I'm a Christian, I think I have the same objections they would have. How do you show me otherwise?

 

[bornagainathiest]

On 02/11/2017 at 2:29 AM, LogicalFallacy said:

 

 

Quote

.

[LogicalFallacy]

BAA before I go further can you explain what you mean by pocket universes?

 

I fully understand your examples of beyond our visual boundary, however we will still say that something beyond our visual boundary is still within our universe yes?

 

If I go back to In the Beginning thread you provided examples of inflation where there were bubbles within an expanding space, but were separate from each other. Is this what you mean by pocket universe? They are within inflating space but are like separate air bubbles in in a glass of fizzy for example?

 

If so are they separated dimensionally or just by space and time? In which case could the two ever interact?

 

Ok that ended up a whole lot of questions.... but important to understand where you are going with your OP.

 

Thanks

 

LF

 

[bornagainathiest]

On 02/11/2017 at 9:24 PM, LogicalFallacy said:

.

 

 

 

 

[disillusioned]

This is another thread I've been meaning to get to, but haven't had the time to properly treat. Such is life. I'll be brief. Hopefully I'll be able to contribute more in the next couple of days.

 

BAA, it seems to me that the form of your argument treats scientific theories in general, and inflationary cosmology in particular, as being either entirely correct or entirely incorrect. I think this is problematic. Premises 1 and 2 are not worth disputing. Premise 3 is a hypothesis, and premise 5 seems to rest on at least one hypothesis. And this is the problem that I see: the fact that inflationary cosmology is the best theory we have does not mean that its hypotheses should be treated as scientific facts. They are not facts. They are hypotheses. They may be good hypotheses, but they are still hypotheses. So this means that the conclusions you reach are also hypothetical.

 

That's all I have time for now. I will be back!

[bornagainathiest]

On 03/11/2017 at 8:31 PM, disillusioned said:

.

 

[LimitedGrip]

9 hours ago, bornagainathiest said:

 

Thanks, D.

Now this is the kind of serious challenge to the internal logic of my argument that I was hoping for.  (No disrespect meant to any other participants by this comment, btw.)

 

To respond, I submit that given what I said to LogicalFallacy...

 

As per the above, LF.

I'd use the above reasoning to demolish your faith-based and science-based arguments for God and then submit that my inferential argument wins out over both.  It does so because inference is based upon evidence, while faith is based upon none.  It does so because your science-based arguments are either flawed or dishonest and my inferential argument is (hopefully) neither flawed nor dishonest.  So, while I cannot directly demonstrate the validity of my argument, I can do so indirectly.  You, on the other hand, have no valid arguments with which to proceed.  By default, mine is the stronger position.

 

...if the best outcome I can manage here are good hypotheses and a hypothetical conclusion, then that is still better than anything the Christians bring to the table.  Faith, flawed arguments and outright dishonesty.     So, by default mine is still the stronger position.   In two ways.   First, because I'll have done what they cannot.   Second, because I did it by the book. 

 

The book they use is not the right one for the job.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

Ugh. I submit, again, that I am less knowledgeable about cosmology than are you. But the point of your original post was to propose a syllogism, at heart. Not something that was merely, "better than what creationists got." 

 

Let it also be known that I know where you are coming from in that my youngest brother came to be an atheist due, in large part, with his fascination in cosmology. A route utterly independent of my own. I find it hard to consider abstract concepts...even the dual slit experiment. But for him, it's fodder. Eats it up. I fully believe that there is a disconnect dependent on how one's mind processes information. Neither better than the other, but functionally at odds. I imagine there are the rare few who can adequately bridge the gap. 

 

I don't mean to be harsh, because I have thoroughly enjoyed every post in this thread; and I hope you are, in fact, on to something.

[disillusioned]

10 hours ago, bornagainathiest said:

As per the above, LF.

I'd use the above reasoning to demolish your faith-based and science-based arguments for God and then submit that my inferential argument wins out over both.  It does so because inference is based upon evidence, while faith is based upon none.  It does so because your science-based arguments are either flawed or dishonest and my inferential argument is (hopefully) neither flawed nor dishonest.  So, while I cannot directly demonstrate the validity of my argument, I can do so indirectly.  You, on the other hand, have no valid arguments with which to proceed.  By default, mine is the stronger position.

 

...if the best outcome I can manage here are good hypotheses and a hypothetical conclusion, then that is still better than anything the Christians bring to the table.  Faith, flawed arguments and outright dishonesty.     So, by default mine is still the stronger position.   In two ways.   First, because I'll have done what they cannot.   Second, because I did it by the book. 

 

Oh, I see.

 

It's been my experience that Christians who try to use science as the basis of the teleological argument (or other arguments, for that matter) generally don't use science appropriately. Either they don't understand the science, or they misrepresent it, or they err when they make inferences based on it. I have found that the best approach is usually to treat the specific case that happens to be in front of me, and point out the issues with the particular version of the argument that I am faced with at that moment. In general, I think that the teleological argument is just silly, and that it is fairly easily refuted. But specific arguers sometimes come with novel claims and different lines of reasoning which can require specific attention.

 

So yes, I think that you could use your argument in the way you suggest here, and you would be in a stronger position than a Christian who is making a faith-based argument. But you wouldn't be in that much of a stronger position. You will not have shown that the universe is not fine-tuned for our existence. You will have shown that only that we don't have to think that it is. What I think is problematic is that the form your initial argument seems to indicate that the conclusions follow necessarily. But they don't. This is somewhat similar to what LG is saying as well. If the argument is presented as a deduction when it isn't, then it is subject to the same sort of dishonesty criticism that we serve up to the creationists. Better, I think, to lay all cards on the table at the outset, so as not to appear to be engaged in any sleight of hand. In other words, I think that the acknowledgement that you make above is very important. It actually doesn't make your position weaker; it makes it stronger.

 

10 hours ago, bornagainathiest said:

The book they use is not the right one for the job.

 

No argument here.

[bornagainathiest]

On 04/11/2017 at 9:44 AM, LimitedGrip said:

.

 

[bornagainathiest]

On 04/11/2017 at 11:03 AM, disillusioned said:

.

[bornagainathiest]

.

[disillusioned]

Sounds good BAA, I'd be interested in looking at that.