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

Einstein on infinity
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.
We have living proof of stupidity on UD.jerry_{January 19, 2022
January
01
Jan
19
19
2022
10:49 AM
10
10
49
AM
PDT}

Asauber: Not at all. These ideas have been infinitely discussed at UD over the years. I’ve read everything you wish to argue before, many times. I’m open to you demonstrating that size is something other than finite. I bet you can’t do it. I will leave it up to Cantor who, more that 100 years ago, dealt with this. He showed that size was something other than finite. So, again, the question is: can you find a fault with Cantor's reasoning? So far you can't. When ignorant people claim they have bypassed well-established and argued over mathematics then you know they can't play the game. If you can't deal with the mathematics then you lose. You could do the honourable thing and admit you don't understand the mathematics. OR you could just continue to bluff and duck and dodge and not actually address the issues.JVL_{January 19, 2022
January
01
Jan
19
19
2022
10:48 AM
10
10
48
AM
PDT}

"YOU are desperately trying to claw back some kind of respectability instead of just being honourable and admitting you’re in over your head." JVL, Not at all. These ideas have been infinitely discussed at UD over the years. I've read everything you wish to argue before, many times. I'm open to you demonstrating that size is something other than finite. I bet you can't do it. Andrewasauber_{January 19, 2022
January
01
Jan
19
19
2022
10:42 AM
10
10
42
AM
PDT}

Asuaber: That’s because it’s not a dodge. Size is finite, and you having a fit about it isn’t going to change anything. And you can't find a fault with Cantor's proof. I'm not having a fit. I'm appealing to well established and well supported mathematics. YOU are desperately trying to claw back some kind of respectability instead of just being honourable and admitting you're in over your head. Are you honourable or not?JVL_{January 19, 2022
January
01
Jan
19
19
2022
10:29 AM
10
10
29
AM
PDT}

"Not even a clever dodge." JVL, That's because it's not a dodge. Size is finite, and you having a fit about it isn't going to change anything. Andrewasauber_{January 19, 2022
January
01
Jan
19
19
2022
10:22 AM
10
10
22
AM
PDT}

Asauber: Size is finite. Not even a clever dodge. Mathematics is logic. Cantor mathematically proved that there are different infinities. It's easy to look up his proof. Can you find a fault with it: yes or no? My recommendation: don't put your oar in when you don't actually understand the waterways.JVL_{January 19, 2022
January
01
Jan
19
19
2022
10:13 AM
10
10
13
AM
PDT}

"Cantor showed there is (mathematically) different sizes of infinity." JVL, Size is finite. Andrewasauber_{January 19, 2022
January
01
Jan
19
19
2022
10:07 AM
10
10
07
AM
PDT}

Asauber: There is no “which” infinity. None of them can be conceived. You mean YOU can't conceive them. You can't make statements about other people. Cantor showed there is (mathematically) different sizes of infinity. I can follow the proof, can you?JVL_{January 19, 2022
January
01
Jan
19
19
2022
10:03 AM
10
10
03
AM
PDT}

"Which infinity are you talking about?" JVL, There is no "which" infinity. None of them can be conceived. Andrewasauber_{January 19, 2022
January
01
Jan
19
19
2022
09:57 AM
9
09
57
AM
PDT}

Asauber: Likewise, you can’t “conceive of” infinity. Which infinity are you talking about?JVL_{January 19, 2022
January
01
Jan
19
19
2022
09:54 AM
9
09
54
AM
PDT}

"You cannot “conceive of” nothing. It’s not possible." WJM, Likewise, you can't "conceive of" infinity. Everything resolves to something finite. So toss infinity in the bin. Andrewasauber_{January 19, 2022
January
01
Jan
19
19
2022
08:31 AM
8
08
31
AM
PDT}

KF, IF you mean nothing, say nothing. You cannot "conceive of" nothing. It's not possible. You can say the word, just like you can say "square circle," but you cannot "conceive" of it. Go ahead, Imagine "nothing." What is it? Blackness? Whiteness? A space absent of color and objects? All those are still things. "Nothing" is an absolute logical self-contradiction that cannot even be imagined. I've corrected you once. Unlike you, I'm not going to keep doing it. You are free to believe as you wish.William J Murray_{January 19, 2022
January
01
Jan
19
19
2022
08:16 AM
8
08
16
AM
PDT}

WJM, be-ing is -- and notice, the IS -- the focus of ontology, a key aspect of metaphysics. Non-being, is the antithesis of being, and nothingness is associated intimately. Utter non-being would be an absolute nothing, and is an antithesis to there being a world. We can conceive of it, but utter non-being at any point would be absence of worlds so we would not be here to talk about such, nor anybody else. KFkairosfocus_{January 19, 2022
January
01
Jan
19
19
2022
08:08 AM
8
08
08
AM
PDT}

KF said:
WJM, non-being is a coherent CONCEPT, but that a world is implies that there never was utter non-being or that would forever obtain and there would not be a world. KF
I didn't say anything about "being" or "non-being." I have no idea what that phrase is supposed t mean.William J Murray_{January 19, 2022
January
01
Jan
19
19
2022
07:50 AM
7
07
50
AM
PDT}

WJM, non-being is a coherent CONCEPT, but that a world is implies that there never was utter non-being or that would forever obtain and there would not be a world. KFkairosfocus_{January 19, 2022
January
01
Jan
19
19
2022
07:46 AM
7
07
46
AM
PDT}

EDTA said:
I am not trying to express a contradiction. When I say “no thing”, “no” modifies “thing” by indicating its absence. If I said “there is no apple on the table,” I’m not expressing a contradiction, I’m expressing an absence, relative to a potential presence that did not obtain. S
"No apple on the table" is a qualitatively different kind of statement than the term "nothing." "0" is still a thing. 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. "Nothing" in terms of the absolute no-thing, including no comparative distinction, is a self-contradiction because it attempts to make a thing out of no available thing-ness. It cannot even be conceptualized or imagined. It is like trying to imagine a square circle. There not being an apple on the table is not "nothing."
I don’t see a logical contradiction there.
I think that's because neither you or KF understand that absolute "nothingness" is not remotely the same kind of statement as the mere absence of "a" thing. "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. "No-thing" in the sense we are talking about here is as pure a logical self-contradiction as a square circle. It is an attempt to conceptualize nothing as a possible thing. That is directly trying to make A eaual not-A.William J Murray_{January 19, 2022
January
01
Jan
19
19
2022
05:39 AM
5
05
39
AM
PDT}

EDTA @23,
The most egregious error they continually make is that all of their “nothings” are always something: a sphere of zero radius, quantum this that or the other thing.
Exactly! "What's greater than God, more evil than the devil, rich people lack it, poor people have plenty of it, and if you eat it you'll die?" -QQuerius_{January 18, 2022
January
01
Jan
18
18
2022
08:01 PM
8
08
01
PM
PDT}

Fasteddious @ 15,
The book, “Why Does the World Exist?” by Jim Holt...
I read that book a couple of years ago. Marked it up with all the logical errors he and his interviewees make. The most egregious error they continually make is that all of their "nothings" are always something: a sphere of zero radius, quantum this that or the other thing. Holt (who supposedly has a PhD in philosophy) doesn't even see the problem here. True nothingness (which did not obtain, clearly) would have none of those things; it would be complete non-being, have no properties, etc. We don't have to worry about it, because that is not what we have. But as KF said, if that had obtained, then that's all there ever would have been. WJM,
Nothing is not a possible thing....the thing one is referring to is a not-thing.
I am not trying to express a contradiction. When I say "no thing", "no" modifies "thing" by indicating its absence. If I said "there is no apple on the table," I'm not expressing a contradiction, I'm expressing an absence, relative to a potential presence that did not obtain. So in this hypothetical state, for any positive thing we can think of (physical, hypothetical, conceptual, an attribute, a property, etc.) and have a word for (because we know of such things), it hypothetically did not exist. KF's "genuine utter nothingness — non-being". I don't see a logical contradiction there.EDTA_{January 18, 2022
January
01
Jan
18
18
2022
06:59 PM
6
06
59
PM
PDT}

BO'H, thanks, corrected and k is up with more from Willard. I also put a link to my outline on likelihood ratios in j. KFkairosfocus_{January 18, 2022
January
01
Jan
18
18
2022
10:09 AM
10
10
09
AM
PDT}

seversky:
...the data suggests to an accelerating expansion of the Universe which will lead to all points in the Universe becoming progressively further and further apart.
Farther and farther apart. Use "farther" when discussing/ describing a literal physical distance. Use "further" when discussing/ describing degrees or extents. As in "Unfortunately, in order to further my career, I will have to drive farther from my home."ET_{January 17, 2022
January
01
Jan
17
17
2022
04:43 PM
4
04
43
PM
PDT}

Sev, I asked you this question in the other thread. Maybe you missed it. You wrote that the
overwhelming majority regard dumping newborns in dumpsters as being evil
Suppose the overwhelming majority regarded dumping newborns in dumpsters as good. Would it then be good?Barry Arrington_{January 17, 2022
January
01
Jan
17
17
2022
04:20 PM
4
04
20
PM
PDT}

From Miller:
[Penrose’s] effort to construct a model to explain the universe is perfectly reasonable, so I have no criticism of [his] sincerity or [his] competence.
Penrose won the Nobel Prize just last year. I’m betting that he is immensely relieved to have Miller’s imprimatur declaring his “competence.”chuckdarwin_{January 17, 2022
January
01
Jan
17
17
2022
04:10 PM
4
04
10
PM
PDT}

Let's say there was an elastic ball that was perfectly efficient so that when you dropped it from a certain height it would return to that same height over and over and over again. Now you walk into a room and you see an elastic ball bouncing up and down over and over again without losing height. Wouldn't your first question be, How could a ball be perfectly efficient?, followed by, Who dropped the ball?PaV_{January 17, 2022
January
01
Jan
17
17
2022
01:09 PM
1
01
09
PM
PDT}

The Universe will ultimately go dark and cold
Except The Last question by Isaac Asimov https://physics.princeton.edu/ph115/LQ.pdfjerry_{January 17, 2022
January
01
Jan
17
17
2022
12:31 PM
12
12
31
PM
PDT}

My underst5anding is that, at this point, the data suggests to an accelerating expansion of the Universe which will lead to all points in the Universe becoming progressively further and further apart. The Universe will ultimately go dark and cold and life such as we know it will cease to be possible. Of course, that projection could change if new data becomes available.Seversky_{January 17, 2022
January
01
Jan
17
17
2022
11:50 AM
11
11
50
AM
PDT}

The book, "Why Does the World Exist?" by Jim Holt discusses the "Why is there something rather than nothing?" question via edited interviews with ten people of various expertise and backgrounds, from cosmology to philosophy to theology and points in between. It made for some fascinating discussions at our "Faith and Science" group.Fasteddious_{January 17, 2022
January
01
Jan
17
17
2022
11:29 AM
11
11
29
AM
PDT}

TAMMIE LEE HAYNES @11, Another good question is "Why is there something rather than nothing?" You'll get answers such as because of gravity, or because of random quantum fluctuations, or because of the multiverse. But all of these are something, not nothing (i.e. non-existence). Here are some more questions to ask: "How does gravity exist without space-time?" "How can probabilities exist without time?" "How is the multiverse different from a giant cosmic turtle that lays universe eggs?" -QQuerius_{January 17, 2022
January
01
Jan
17
17
2022
11:06 AM
11
11
06
AM
PDT}

TAMMIE LEE HAYNES Can anyone help me answer this. Some scientists speculate that the universe is cyclic. That is, it repeatedly goes thru a cycle of 1) big bang 2) expansion 3 contraction 4 big crunch 5) go to 1
Ask the scientists : "Who pays the bill for energy? or "Do you believe in miracle(the existence of an "perpetuum mobile" system )?. Then wait for answer. :) I think that , in real life, "the infinite" can only be qualitative .Never quantitative . We are biased to think (almost)everything only through 3D spatio-temporal dimension which is a limitation but an useful intelligently designed limitation. :)Lieutenant Commander Data_{January 17, 2022
January
01
Jan
17
17
2022
09:21 AM
9
09
21
AM
PDT}

Jerry, the universe cannot have had an infinite number of years for convenience in its past, you cannot traverse the transfinite in finite stage steps. As to an actually infinite amount or number of any PHYSICAL quantity, e.g. number of atoms, that is running into so many things that are absurd that it is ludicrous. KFkairosfocus_{January 17, 2022
January
01
Jan
17
17
2022
08:33 AM
8
08
33
AM
PDT}

Can anyone help me answer this. Some scientists speculate that the universe is cyclic. That is, it repeatedly goes thru a cycle of 1) big bang 2) expansion 3 contraction 4 big crunch 5) go to 1 But according to Top Peer Reviewed Scientists emprical data says that our unverse is expanding at an accelerating rate, because the "vacuum energy"* has a positve value. My question is : How could you get ever repeating cycles, when the cycle that we live in will never end?TAMMIE LEE HAYNES_{January 17, 2022
January
01
Jan
17
17
2022
08:02 AM
8
08
02
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply