Remember how endless cycles of universe were supposed to show that the universe has no real beginning?

_{Denyse O'Leary

January 16, 2022

Cosmology, Intelligent Design, Multiverse}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

As with Penrose’s model, Steinhardt and Ijjas’s model faces the philosophical problems of an infinite universe, and it must rely on a large number of questionable assumptions. Their effort to construct a model to explain the universe is perfectly reasonable, so I have no criticism of their sincerity or their competence. Yet the conclusion that the universe had a beginning is far more parsimonious and consistent with the evidence. The main reason for the resistance against it from many in the scientific community is its philosophical and theological implications.
Brian Miller, “Paul Steinhardt’s Cyclical Cosmology Fails to Challenge a Cosmic Beginning” at Evolution News (January 12, 2022)

The paper is open access.

While we are here, wouldn’t an infinite universe include the possibility that it doesn’t exist? Playing with infinity is playing a dangerous game.

There is a good article by Robert J. Marks on the topic of infinite parallel universes here.

Comments

EDTA @64, Nicely said. I think I can add Nothing to this thread. Stay tuned . . . -QQuerius_{January 21, 2022
January
01
Jan
21
21
2022
04:05 PM
4
04
05
PM
PDT}

WJM, non being, restricted or global, is a reasonable concept, antithesis to being. Nothingness would be associated. No need for yet another word fight. KFkairosfocus_{January 21, 2022
January
01
Jan
21
21
2022
04:39 AM
4
04
39
AM
PDT}

EDTA said:
I’m describing it only by a single second-order property: that of having no first-order properties.
What "it?" There is no "it" for you to talk about or assign a first or second-order property to. WJM said:
If whatever you’re talking about has no properties, you’re not talking about anything.
EDTA responded:
Bingo! I am talking about the one thing that ....
I don't know what else to say about this, or how I can make it any clearer that you're speaking in a self-contradiction. You continue here:
But the concept is not the (non-)thing itself.
Really? And you don't see what's wrong with the way you had to write that sentence?William J Murray_{January 21, 2022
January
01
Jan
21
21
2022
02:06 AM
2
02
06
AM
PDT}

There is also rally coverage info here- https://marchforlife.org/national-march-for-life/ Andrewasauber_{January 20, 2022
January
01
Jan
20
20
2022
11:02 AM
11
11
02
AM
PDT}

AS, thanks. KFkairosfocus_{January 20, 2022
January
01
Jan
20
20
2022
10:32 AM
10
10
32
AM
PDT}

KF, https://www.ewtn.com/ always has live and encore coverage of the March and related events. Andrewasauber_{January 20, 2022
January
01
Jan
20
20
2022
10:09 AM
10
10
09
AM
PDT}

WJM, >Absence of properties is a property. Absence of properties is a meta-property, not a first-order property. Absolute nothingness has no first-order properties. >If “absence of properties” is not a description or property, what are you even talking about? I'm describing it only by a single second-order property: that of having no first-order properties. >If whatever you’re talking about has no properties, you’re not talking about anything. Bingo! I am talking about the one thing that has no first-order properties at all. Only one thing can be that, and prior to a few years ago, I never even conceived of such a thing. But I can and have conceived of it. Join me in going where your mind has never gone before! >Concepts are things. But the concept is not the (non-)thing itself. The concept is just a higher-level description of the (in this case) non-thing. (Maybe meta-conceptualize is a better word.) A failed argument against this idea might go something like this: P1. Every concept is itself a thing. P2. Absolute nothingness is a concept. P3. Therefore absolute nothingness is itself a thing. Contradiction! But this fails because the concept is not the same as what it conceptualizes. So I reject Premise 2. Do you see another approach to demonstrating absurdity?EDTA_{January 20, 2022
January
01
Jan
20
20
2022
09:03 AM
9
09
03
AM
PDT}

AS, okay, point us to where the march will be live blogged or on video. KFkairosfocus_{January 20, 2022
January
01
Jan
20
20
2022
09:02 AM
9
09
02
AM
PDT}

VL, so some say. to that I respond, that what is intelligible is what guides us and it is what we need to address. Where it is plain for all to see that contrary to objections and claims, the relativist thesis, explicit or implicit is indeed in effect S = ~[O*M] = 1. Which, for cause I have shown is self referentially incoherent. Further to which there are indeed claims as to what is the state of affairs involved with matters of right conduct etc and objectivity is intimately connected to warrant for finite, fallible, error prone but reasonably rational and significantly free creatures who need to reckon with what it is to be rightly, soundly guided. KFkairosfocus_{January 20, 2022
January
01
Jan
20
20
2022
08:59 AM
8
08
59
AM
PDT}

VL, that stuck record talk point is now clear, so I speak for record. From 2016 on over three years [were you there back in 2016?], there were people who objected to and even refused to allow consideration of the hyperreals, and linked to that to using the 1/x function to catapult between transfinites and infinitesimals, as well as to using R* to frame the question of what a transfinite past would entail. I eventually had to use a YT interview with a Model Theorist who had been Robinson's student to establish the point. There was debate over the point that the nature of the transfiniteness involves that every specifically represented finite -k has onward -(k+1), - (k+2) so that there is no specifically defined furthest removed finite negative integer, pointing to the onward transfinites. R* mileposted by Z* in the general vicinity of 0 makes such plain. It is thus clear that whether one is implicit or explicit, the traversal of a transfinite span in steps -- what without beginning implies -- is an infeasible supertask and the temporal-causal-thermodynamically connected spacetime past therefore cannot have been transfinite, as logic of structure and quantity not just heat death. The positioning of the span of finite counting numbers as labels for the "years" in the wider context of hyperreals helped make that clear for those willing to see. It was and remains the case that we cannot have had a beginningless actual past without there having been a transfinite actual past, each "year" being succeeded by a causally, thermodynamically connected successor down to the present. KF PS: March for Life, AS regularly attends and I normally host pics etc.kairosfocus_{January 20, 2022
January
01
Jan
20
20
2022
08:52 AM
8
08
52
AM
PDT}

KF writes, "There are folks who had long exchanges with me arguing against hyperreals." Misrepresentation of what folks actually argued against. And what is march 49? And the Tao that can be spoken is not the real Tao. Language and our thinking process has to deal with duality, setting off one thing from what it is not. That which is beyond what is cannot be grasped with language.Viola Lee_{January 20, 2022
January
01
Jan
20
20
2022
06:30 AM
6
06
30
AM
PDT}

EDTA said:
I’m not sure why the test of being able to imagine something or not is a test of its logical viability.
It's not a test. Could people 10,000 years ago imagine the internet? Also, of course we cannot ever hold an infinite amount of things in our imagination. But, that's an out-of-context application of what I'm talking about. I framed what I meant by using the "square circle" comparison and by exposing "nothing," in the manner we're using the term, as an actual, literal self-contradiction. No sentient being can imagine (conceive) a literal thing that is self-contradictory. It cannot be done - not because of the limitations of imagination, but because of absolute qualities of what it means for something, anything, to exist even as an imagined thing. "Nothing" cannot be imagined not because of limitations to imagination; it's literally something that cannot exist, even in imagination, because it is an inherent, literal self-contradiction.
But absolute nothingness would have no properties, so there wouldn’t be any pairs of properties to lie in contradiction to each other. The analogy with a square circle doesn’t work as a disproof.
"Square Circle" is exactly like "nothing." Absence of properties is a property. If "absence of properties" is not a description or property, what are you even talking about? If whatever you're talking about has no properties, you're not talking about anything. You're engaging in a string of nonsensical words because you're not talking about anything. This is similar to the way people mistakenly reify a model, like gravity, as a cause. You're talking about "nothing" as if it's a possible thing with the property of not having any properties. It's pure nonsense.
In philosopher-speak, it is the attempt to conceptualize a possible state of affairs that might have obtained. That is not a “thing”.
Concepts are things. "Nothing" cannot be conceptualized. It's literal non-sense.William J Murray_{January 20, 2022
January
01
Jan
20
20
2022
06:24 AM
6
06
24
AM
PDT}

KF, I started a new job late in the year last year, so I have not earned the time to take off to go to the March, and my heart is aching because I can't go. :( But I will be there in spirit! I heard the mayor of DC is conjuring up new rules to dissuade people from Marching. It's disgusting to say the least. Andrewasauber_{January 20, 2022
January
01
Jan
20
20
2022
05:04 AM
5
05
04
AM
PDT}

AS, we can conceive of the limitlessness of counting numbers then give its transfinite cardinality the number name aleph-null. Then, take successor values of the order type of N, w, w + 1 and so forth, or compare the successive power sets of the set N, where pow(A) = the set of subsets of A, of cardinality 2^A, which gets bigger and bigger in succession. So, we can construct a framework and so far it has not tossed up a blatant unresolvable contradiction and has some utility. So, we can work with it. KF PS, ready for march 49?kairosfocus_{January 20, 2022
January
01
Jan
20
20
2022
02:08 AM
2
02
08
AM
PDT}

EDTA, muy interesante. Good stuff mon. KFkairosfocus_{January 20, 2022
January
01
Jan
20
20
2022
01:59 AM
1
01
59
AM
PDT}

JVL, cut some slack, obviously the linked is about a finitist. They have a different scheme of thought, and we may disagree but let them play with their abstract, logic-model world. I of course can and have conceived transfinite sets and note the math that uses them, playing with surreals and hyperreals as you know. There are folks who had long exchanges with me arguing against hyperreals, much as some argued against 0, then negatives then complex numbers. I find hyperreals make sense and allow us to understand transfinites and infinitesimals thus take a fresh look at an old approach to Calculus. Others balk, likely because we cannot traverse a transfinite in finite stage steps and as a physical countable transfinite is probably not possible. And so forth. KFkairosfocus_{January 20, 2022
January
01
Jan
20
20
2022
01:57 AM
1
01
57
AM
PDT}

WJM, On nothing from Collins Dictionary, picking from 22 related usages . . . clearly, a very active concept:
nothing (?n????) pron 1. (indefinite) no thing; not anything, as of an implied or specified class of things: I can give you nothing. 2. no part or share: to have nothing to do with this crime. 3. a matter of no importance or significance: it doesn't matter, it's nothing. 4. indicating the absence of anything perceptible; nothingness 5. indicating the absence of meaning, value, worth, etc: to amount to nothing. 6. zero quantity; nought
When we use being to speak of entities and/or their states of affairs in general, nothing denotes the antithesis, non being. Ari put it as what rocks dream of, rocks of course presumably have no dreams. So, we can form the concept. Which is different from, say, a seven sided pentagon. In this context, we can conceive of utter non being as contrasted with worlds and their contents. Then, extend to utter non being, i.e. absolute global absence of being. As non being has no causal capability, were such so, it would forever obtain. Put another way, as a world is, something with causal capability to be wellspring of worlds always was. Which leads us to contemplate world framework, necessary beings as a category. More can be said but that is enough to show the concept. KFkairosfocus_{January 20, 2022
January
01
Jan
20
20
2022
01:49 AM
1
01
49
AM
PDT}

WJM, >Imagine “nothing.” What is it? Blackness? Whiteness? A space absent of color and objects? All those are still things. I'm not sure why the test of being able to imagine something or not is a test of its logical viability. I can describe infinity, but I cannot imagine it in any full sense. I can't really imagine gravity in all its implications, either. I can't imagine some mathematical constructs, but can work with them symbolically. Imagination is a meager attempt at wrapping one's head around something; it's not a good test of the possibility of something. >An empty set is still a thing because it necessarily refers to an absence of a thing in the context of other existent things – like a set that is not empty. >“No-thing” in the sense we are talking about here is as pure a logical self-contradiction as a square circle. .. That is directly trying to make A equal not-A. A square circle is a contradiction, because a geometric object is indeed a thing, and cannot have the two given properties (circularity, squareness) simultaneously. But absolute nothingness would have no properties, so there wouldn't be any pairs of properties to lie in contradiction to each other. The analogy with a square circle doesn't work as a disproof. I agree that an empty set is a thing, but had absolute nothingness obtained, it would contain no sets, empty or otherwise. [Forget the apple analogy; bad idea.] >absolute “nothingness” is not remotely the same kind of statement as the mere absence of “a” thing. Right. It would be the simultaneous absence of absolutely everything, not just one thing at a time. >“Absence” in any normal use of the word requires a context of things that some thing can be absent from so that you can recognize it as absent. Perhaps this is not a normal use of the word, because with absolute nothingness, there is nobody around to be bothered that there is nothing to put in opposition to it to recognize the absence. Nobody needs to recognize it for it to have obtained. It's just absence. (Surely you can incorporate this in to MRT _somehow_!) >It is an attempt to conceptualize nothing as a possible thing. In philosopher-speak, it is the attempt to conceptualize a possible state of affairs that might have obtained. That is not a "thing". Because absolute nothingness has no properties, it cannot appear black or white; it has no appearance--and nobody would have been around to observe. I'm open to a real deductive argument that absolute nothingness is a contradiction, but I still don't see it yet.EDTA_{January 19, 2022
January
01
Jan
19
19
2022
07:02 PM
7
07
02
PM
PDT}

An atheist shouldn't talk about logic and mathematics because both are used to create codes(like DNA) so both exist before the existence of the matter. Random chance never produces codes ,only garbage. So how the codes appear according to your understanding? All universal constants are also codes that work together in one super code that allow the existence of other biological codes . Everything is about interconnected codes , codes inside other codes , matter is just the paper and the ink for the codes.Lieutenant Commander Data_{January 19, 2022
January
01
Jan
19
19
2022
01:59 PM
1
01
59
PM
PDT}

Asauber: *You* linked to a website which made a flawed argument, which I easily exposed. But you can have the last word. I have better things to do. You clearly can't do the math. You clearly do not understand the work that has been done. And when that is pointed out to you you flee. You didn't expose anything. You linked to a goofy, unsupported, flawed argument on some non-peer reviewed website. Gosh. Run away if you like. I'm still here, waiting for you to find a flaw in Cantor's logicJVL_{January 19, 2022
January
01
Jan
19
19
2022
12:49 PM
12
12
49
PM
PDT}

Asuaber: From the website you cite:
First, numbers do not exist “between” 0 and 1. Numbers relate to quantity and magnitude, and their metaphysical existence is conceptual, not spatial.
Too funny. Too stupid.
Thus, it’s clear: the modern world desperately needs new foundations for mathematical reasoning. Math needs to be logical – grounded in the principles of identity, non-contradiction, and clear conceptual reasoning – and it also needs to be metaphysically precise. We need to eject infinities, Platonism, and Cantorism from all of mathematics, and relegate them to the world of mysticism and Numerology. An enormous amount of work has to be done, and it’s vitally important. Right now, mathematics is filled to the brim with false knowledge based on mistaken premises. Not only do the foundational ideas have to be revised, but we also have to throw out all of the conclusions which follow from those premises – at this point, that’s a considerable amount of modern mathematics. A century has been wasted analyzing what follows from a logical contradiction. Infinite sets do not exist; Cantor was wrong; and it will take nothing less than an intellectual revolution to place mathematics back on firm foundations.
Absolute rubbish. Typical stuff from someone who hasn't actually figured out the logic behind the mathematics. You haven't 'proved' anything. You've linked to a goofy, unreviewed and ridiculous website which flings a lot of metaphysical ideas about without proving anything. And mathematics is, actually, about proofs. You've got no proofs.JVL_{January 19, 2022
January
01
Jan
19
19
2022
12:44 PM
12
12
44
PM
PDT}

"You linked to a website which made a flawed argument." JVL, *You* linked to a website which made a flawed argument, which I easily exposed. But you can have the last word. I have better things to do. Andrewasauber_{January 19, 2022
January
01
Jan
19
19
2022
12:44 PM
12
12
44
PM
PDT}

Asuaber: didn’t. I showed that your position is based on a flawed premise. You just won’t accept that you are wrong. You are lashing out. Go have a rest. You didn't 'show' anything. You linked to a website which made a flawed argument. You failed to find a flaw in the logic. You didn't even look at it. Cantor's work has been accepted by mainstream mathematics for over a century after spending a bit of time being argued over. You are saying that over a century of mathematicians are wrong when you haven't been able to find a flow in the logic of the proof. You never even looked at the proof. You gave a linked to some website with some under-reviewed thoughts which have not been scrutinised and checked and argued over by people who know the field. It makes some vague and unsupported arguments about infinite sets which, if accepted, would have stifled mathematical reasoning. That's pretty poor. That doesn't count. You don't understand the mathematics. You are just copying and pasting arguments that support your view without being able to actually understand the issues. You lose. All this stuff has been looked at and argued over a long time ago. A lot of very smart people have gone over this stuff many, many, many times. You may be pretty smart but I rather doubt you have come up with something that hasn't already been considered and addressed. It's up to you to catch up and learn those arguments.JVL_{January 19, 2022
January
01
Jan
19
19
2022
12:39 PM
12
12
39
PM
PDT}

"You asked for the logic, I provided it, you ran away." JVL, I didn't. I showed that your position is based on a flawed premise. You just won't accept that you are wrong. You are lashing out. Go have a rest. Andrewasauber_{January 19, 2022
January
01
Jan
19
19
2022
12:18 PM
12
12
18
PM
PDT}

Asauber: I haven’t. And you are in mere denial. I guess you are just that way. You didn't address the mathematics. You asked for the logic, I provided it, you ran away. Do you think lying for your cause is worthy? Do you think you gain any points for pretending and then running away?JVL_{January 19, 2022
January
01
Jan
19
19
2022
12:14 PM
12
12
14
PM
PDT}

"Okay, you have definitely punted on the logic and the mathematics." JVL, I haven't. And you are in mere denial. I guess you are just that way. Andrewasauber_{January 19, 2022
January
01
Jan
19
19
2022
12:07 PM
12
12
07
PM
PDT}

Asauber: “Not only do infinite sets not exist, but the very concept is logically contradictory – no different than “square circles”. Okay, you have definitely punted on the logic and the mathematics. You lose. Big time. You didn't even try You just ran away. That is sad. Very sad.JVL_{January 19, 2022
January
01
Jan
19
19
2022
12:01 PM
12
12
01
PM
PDT}

"Not only do infinite sets not exist, but the very concept is logically contradictory – no different than “square circles”. http://steve-patterson.com/cantor-wrong-no-infinite-sets/ Andrewasauber_{January 19, 2022
January
01
Jan
19
19
2022
11:15 AM
11
11
15
AM
PDT}

Asauber: All you have to do is present the elegant logic that demonstrates this. Just cut and paste it. Easily done. Here's just one: https://www.sciencealert.com/here-s-the-simple-proof-that-there-must-be-multiple-levels-of-infinity And remember: if you can't follow the logic it doesn't mean it isn't true.JVL_{January 19, 2022
January
01
Jan
19
19
2022
10:59 AM
10
10
59
AM
PDT}

"He showed that size was something other than finite." JVL, All you have to do is present the elegant logic that demonstrates this. Just cut and paste it. Andrewasauber_{January 19, 2022
January
01
Jan
19
19
2022
10:54 AM
10
10
54
AM
PDT}

1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply