The ever-cycling universe cycles back to town

_{Denyse O'Leary

August 16, 2019

Cosmology, Intelligent Design, Physics

4}_{Categories
Cosmology
Intelligent Design
Physics}

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

This image represents the evolution of the Universe, starting with the Big Bang. The red arrow marks the flow of time. — Big Bang/NASA

Pausing to rest for a moment at New Scientist:

You might think that the universe started with a big bang. Ten years ago, that is what I thought too. But then I came to realise that the issue is far from settled. Pursuing this question prompted me to change the tack of my career and become a cosmologist, even though I had just completed a PhD in the philosophy of quantum physics. What I have discovered since then supports a radically new response to the question that irked Augustine – what came before the beginning? The answer, thrillingly, may be that there never was a big bang, but instead a universe with no beginning or end, repeatedly bouncing from an epoch of contraction to expansion, and back again.
Anna Ijjas, “What if there was no big bang and we live in an ever-cycling universe?” at New Scientist (paywall)

The war on the Big Bang as an actual beginning can never stop and never will. The main question is whether the war on evidence will settle the issue by allowing whatever view would prevail most “thrillingly” to stand in for science.

Evidence isn’t really at issue; many people today need a universe other than the one we live in and they will theorize their way to it, if only in their own imaginations. But “science” will cooperate if science knows what is good for it.

Experimental physicist Rob Sheldon, our physics color commentator, writes to say,

The Long Ascent: Genesis 1â 11 in Science & Myth, Volume 1 by [Sheldon, Robert]

Anna Ijjas was a post-doc for Paul Steinhardt, and in the past 5 years they have written a number of papers very critical of “inflation”. It’s ironic, because Steinhardt was one of the 3 founders of inflation theory. Just last week we had a mention of his 2017 SciAm blog describing the death of inflation. The problem is that no one knows how to solve all the designed features of the universe without inflation. Evidently Steinhardt and Ijjas came up with a solution (which turns out to be 40 years old), the “Big Bounce”. They argue that all the smoothness of the universe produced by inflation, can also be produced by repeated expansion-contraction-bouncing expansion-contraction-bouncing expansion…

Here’s their 2019 cyclic universe paper:

Abstract: Combining intervals of ekpyrotic (ultra-slow) contraction with a (non-singular) classical bounce naturally leads to a novel cyclic theory of the universe in which the Hubble parameter, energy density and temperature oscillate periodically, but the scale factor grows by an exponential factor from one cycle to the next. The resulting cosmology not only resolves the homogeneity, isotropy, flatness and monopole problems and generates a nearly scale invariant spectrum of density perturbations, but it also addresses a number of age-old cosmological issues that big bang inflationary cosmology does not. There may also be wider-ranging implications for fundamental physics, black holes and quantum measurement. (open access)More.

Sheldon also offers some thoughts on the paper:

Two points:
1) What is really recycling is not the universe, but this theory.
2) None of the previous objections to a “Bouncing Universe” are addressed, rather it is now seen (by Ijjas and Steinhardt) as less objectionable than the justifications for inflation, multiverse, etc. In other words, its new-found attraction is simply by comparison to all the other badly aging theories out there.

Note: Rob Sheldon is the author of Genesis: The Long Ascent.

See also: The Big Bang: Put simply,the facts are wrong.

and

What becomes of science when the evidence does not matter?

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

Hazel, I use the natural counting numbers as a framework for counting stages, so let us explore their pattern via von Neumann: {} --> 0 {0} --> 1 {0,1} --> 2 . . . {0,1,2 . . .} --> w Notice, how the RHS is the ORDER TYPE of the LHS and gives us a label for the set? It introduces no additional quantity. The implicitly transfinite nature of the natural counting numbers as a whole is captured in the three dot ellipsis, and the w is a short hand for the set viewed as ordinal, having cardinality Aleph null. In this context, the claim, there is a beginningless traversed actual past of cumulative temporal-causal stages to now can be understood as implying traversal of the transfinite. Let now, N, be 0, and let's just roll over to the negative integers, mirror image to the positive counting numbers. So, N has antecedent N-1, next N-2, . . . N-K, N-[K+1], . . . where on this hype EVERY and ALL -ve integers -K are matched to actual past causal-temporal stages. The order type of this suggested span is patently w and the span is implicitly transfinite. (This is best seen by pulling back the zoom and seeing i/l/o the hyperreals and surreals.) That the set is transfinite can be seen by how running a count onwards from K will replicate the process as though K were zero. That is, a proper subset can be placed in 1:1 correspondence with the whole set to N. That is a diagnostic sign of a transfinite set. The claim, that there was a beginningless transfinite past implies a claim to have traversed a transfinite span in finite step cumulative causal-temporal stages. This is an infeasible supertask. We have no warrant to claim actual transfinite traverse in finite stage steps. By contrast, posit some H such that 1/H --> h where h is less than any 1/n n in the natural counting numbers will catapult over the span of the naturals with the interpolated continuum that leads to R. The hyperreals help us see the big picture. KF PS: The context of the discussion is the beginningless past claim.kairosfocus_{August 18, 2019
August
08
Aug
18
18
2019
07:48 PM
7
07
48
PM
PDT}

This is pointless, I know, but kf writes, "So, a finite stage successive process will not span an explicit or implicit transfinite span." If we are thinking about the real number line, there are no "transfinite spans", assuming that the phrase "transfinite span" means that there are two points spanned by (or separated by) an infinite distance. Let me make a few things clear: 1. I am not arguing for a beginningless past: that is not a subject I have addressed. I am just discussing the nature of the real number line and the concept of infinity. 2. I know very well, of course, that counting in successive steps doesn't ever end. If that is all kf's sentence means, then of course I agree. If "transfinite span" just means the always continuable process of counting onwards, forever and without limit, then we have no disagreement. 3. If kf is still talking about the hyperreals, then he can just ignore this post.hazel_{August 18, 2019
August
08
Aug
18
18
2019
06:00 PM
6
06
00
PM
PDT}

KF- And that is where Stephen Hawking made his living- the beginning just happened. Given the state of matter, heh, it just had to happen. And the laws that govern nature "just are (the way they are)" ("A Briefer History of Time").ET_{August 18, 2019
August
08
Aug
18
18
2019
04:56 PM
4
04
56
PM
PDT}

ET, a beginning points to a very unwelcome thought, a begin-ner. KFkairosfocus_{August 18, 2019
August
08
Aug
18
18
2019
04:30 PM
4
04
30
PM
PDT}

Hazel, R is a subset of *R, and by setting it in context we better appreciate what a beginningless past entails. Where, it is a key part of the structure of Z and R that any particular value we can count to or bound by counting just past (whether by incrementing or decrementing), will be finite. So, a finite stage successive process will not span an explicit or implicit transfinite span. Consequently we do not have a good reason to claim a beginningless past that by finite stage causal-temporal succession has attained to now. In discussing the real past we are only warranted to speak of finitely remote stages, not stages that have passed beyond any finite limit. KFkairosfocus_{August 18, 2019
August
08
Aug
18
18
2019
04:24 PM
4
04
24
PM
PDT}

hazel just refuses to understand the point. Oh well.ET_{August 18, 2019
August
08
Aug
18
18
2019
03:36 PM
3
03
36
PM
PDT}

I've watched that before, kf, and read other stuff: I know about hyperreals, and know how they work. That is not my point. My point is that I am virtually certain that everyone from Aristotle to people like William Lane Craig have had the real number line in mind when discussing time: my bet is that you are the only person who wants to introduce the hyperreals as a model for time. And, I know full well that the "real" numbers have no special status just because of their name. I used to give a whole lecture in calc class about the history of numbers, with an emphasis on what a bad choice "imaginary" was for the square roots of negative numbers.hazel_{August 18, 2019
August
08
Aug
18
18
2019
01:47 PM
1
01
47
PM
PDT}

Watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBp0bEczCNgkairosfocus_{August 18, 2019
August
08
Aug
18
18
2019
01:08 PM
1
01
08
PM
PDT}

Hazel, you are trying to rule arbitrary datum lines. The issue is to address the claimed beginningless physical world, and whichever framework of quantities and structures that best allows us to frame such is applicable. So, we go where we find what we need to accurately describe and model. It turns out that surreals and hyperreals allow this best, framing the naturals and reals in a way that brings out how R connects to transfiniteness. My observation is that we often put the trasnsfinite character of the claim of beginninglessness behind a curtain of an ellipsis, and not even a four dot ellipsis. The applicability of counting numbers comes from successive, causal-temporal finite stages, so we can start at now N and count back in -1 increments to some K, in n steps, and beyond K to k -m, then onward to k - (m + p), then we can raise the issue of increasing m + p without limit. That is what brings out that there is no definable last finite counting number or integer so going one further step is no longer finite. That is the ellipsis implies a zone of onward continuation so the whole indefinite set is transfinite. Continuum can be filled in using shifts of [0,1]. Where, our ability to use the catapult function 1/x lets us see the connectedness of the hyperreals. For a transfinite hyperreal H, 1/H --> h, closer to 0 than 1/N --> 0 for any natural but h and n are obviously in the same interval [0,1]. Saying n is a real but h is not simply tells me that the reals as defined are not the set relevant to my concerns, because of the happenstance of definitions; I think calling R the "reals" lends it an aura that it turns out it cannot live up to. Worse, having valid infinitesimals opens up vistas for calculus related processes and linked physics; so, so much the worse for good old set R. Old model, now retired. We have enough to settle the substantial matter, now settled that we have no plausible basis to speak of a beginningless past. KF PS: You ask questions, I will comment: >>1. The [counting] number line is infinite in that you can keep counting forever, so traversing the number line is a journey that cannot be completed.>> --> In finite step stages. --> Numbers extends to the transfinite and infinitesimal, with complex numbers as vectors. --> As I based my argument on, one cannot count up from 0 in finite stages and reach a transfinite. Beyond any K finitely removed from 0, we have k+1, k+2, . . . so we can just as readily initiate the counting from K on. >>2. There is is no “transfinite point” that “resides” on the [counting] number line:>> --> Irrelevant to our interest, and there are hyperreals and surreals connected to N, Z, Q, R which can be seen as linked through say hyperreal H --> 1/H --> h near 0 in the interval [0,1] >> that is, there is no place on the real number line>> --> reals interpolate counting numbers, >>that is “transfinitely remote” from any finite point.>> --> "place" implies specific identified value. Such a value can be incremented depending on which side +/-1 and exceeded. --> But all that tells me is the STRUCTURE continues on without limit and is transfinitely bound by w the order type of the counting numbers and by -w its additive inverse taking in negative integers. --> This comes out very naturally in pondering surreals. There is a well known diagram that brings it out very well. >>3. That is, no two [specifically identifiable] points on the counting, [integer or real] number line are ~~an infinite distance apart.~~ [--> transfinitely algebraically different on subtraction] >> --> I find it important to highlight that once we specify or identify or symbolise particular values in N, Z or R we may exceed by increment. However, it is part of the STRUCTURE of the sets that they are without FINITE bound, i.e. the ellipsis we use is pregnant with huge meaning. --> That is why I no longer trouble myself overmuch over the so impressively named "reals" which unfortunately suggests psychologically that other relevant and valid numbers are somehow less than real, are somehow an arbitrarily invented figment of our imagination. --> It turns out the hyperreals and surreals were what I was interested in and needed, I am happy to have R, Q, Z, N bracketed inside transfinites [with w the first transfinite ordinal but there is plenty room for related surreals around w] and to have 0 surrounded by an infinitesimal cloud of values like h of smaller magnitude than the reciprocal of any particular n in Nkairosfocus_{August 18, 2019
August
08
Aug
18
18
2019
11:24 AM
11
11
24
AM
PDT}

I just read the PS to 49. kf wants to include the hyperreals in this discussion, and I don't, as I don't think that is the model many, or any except kf, have in mind when they discuss time. Therefore, no further discussion is necessary.hazel_{August 18, 2019
August
08
Aug
18
18
2019
08:17 AM
8
08
17
AM
PDT}

kf, you are addressing all sorts of issues that I am not. Concerning the real number line, do you agree with these statements? If not, please explain. 1. The number line is infinite in that you can keep counting forever, so traversing the number line is a journey that cannot be completed. 2. There is is no “transfinite point” that “resides” on the number line: that is, there is no place on the real number line that is “transfinitely remote” from any finite point. 3. That is, no two points on the number line are an infinite distance apart. Can you address just these three points?hazel_{August 18, 2019
August
08
Aug
18
18
2019
07:22 AM
7
07
22
AM
PDT}

Hazel, with all due respect you come across as looking for a strawman caricature based on taking out of context. I am not claiming that we can descend from the beginningless (so transfinite) past in finite stage steps ("years") BB and before him others such as Russell are or were, at least by implication. What I am highlighting is why such a claim implies traversing a transfinite span in finite stage steps which is an infeasible supertask. You cannot get your transfinite beginningless past by leaving that character behind the curtain of an ellipsis. Beginningless plainly implies that the past in countable causally-temporally successive stages -- with before leads to after through causal processes involving energy flows and thermodynamics -- is remote beyond any finite K however large the n stages to now are. As to countability, a once now gives rise to a successor and this chains step by step. We can therefore in principle tag them and arrange them, with +1 increments in the succession direction and -1 increments in the antecedent direction. This can be mapped to an integer number line. Beginninglessmess implies transfinite TEMPORAL-CAUSAL extension leftwards. It is that which runs into the supertask I drew out. Your explanation as to how a behinningless transfinite character past extending beyond ANY finitely remote past stage K of finite duration can be traversed in finite stage steps is ________ ? KF PS: I have been dealing with hyperreals and/or surreals, the reals line with Z as mileposts is irrelevant to my concerns. I will say that any particular K on it reachable in finite steps or bracketed in finite stage steps is inherently finite. But the line has an indefinite extension that gradually points to the transfinites beyond. On the hyperreals model -- closer to what ET is fishing for -- a transfinite M can feed into 1/M --> m closer to 0 than any 1/N --> n for a natural counting number. Such an m is on a continuum to 0 the hyperreals, and as M is operated on within a given class of numbers the hyperreals, there is arguably a one line that takes in all. Just it is not called the reals. I add, m is an infinitesimal leading to nonstandard analysis and Calculus, dx dt etc.kairosfocus_{August 18, 2019
August
08
Aug
18
18
2019
07:12 AM
7
07
12
AM
PDT}

kf writes, "The summary above IN THAT CONTEXT suggests going back w steps beyond K in finite stages precisely in order to show why we cannot do it, transfiniteness here being precisely an emergent property that does not suddenly arise but is recognised. Thus w is the order type, thus stepwise successor, to the naturals. It cannot be stepped up to leading to [w-1] being finite then +1 and poof, magic, w is now suddenly transfinite. I agree with that (except I'm not sure about the "emergent property" sentence means). My point is that transfinite numbers are not on the real number line. Do you agree with what I wrote ET at 47? (A nice short answer to that question would be appreciated.)hazel_{August 18, 2019
August
08
Aug
18
18
2019
06:12 AM
6
06
12
AM
PDT}

Yes, the number line is infinite in that you can keep counting forever, so I agree that traversing the number line (and time if modeled by the number line) is a journey that cannot be completed. But there is is no "transfinite point" that "resides" on the number line: there is no place "transfinitely remote" from any finite point. No two points on the number line are an infinite distance apart. That's all fairly simple and entirely orthodox math.hazel_{August 18, 2019
August
08
Aug
18
18
2019
06:08 AM
6
06
08
AM
PDT}

The transfinite resides on the real number line, hazel. Time, like the transfinite and infinity, is a journey.ET_{August 18, 2019
August
08
Aug
18
18
2019
05:58 AM
5
05
58
AM
PDT}

kf, I think when people think about time they use the real number line as the model. Your inclusion of ordinals and hyperreals is idiosyncratic, I think. Enough for me.hazel_{August 18, 2019
August
08
Aug
18
18
2019
05:40 AM
5
05
40
AM
PDT}

Hazel, Let's observe my phrasing in 25 above, noting that there were remarks leading up to:
[ . . . ] look at what is happening beyond K. We obviously can in principle go to m, finitely further removed. However, as we try to count onwards, we see an up-count appearing in countable steps, m, m+1, m+2 etc. We can justify reaching successively to some finite m+p, but we can never justify a count like k-(m+[w-1]), k-w, where w is transfinite, omega. That is the transfinite remove beyond k cannot credibly be spanned in finite stage successive steps. We are only justified in speaking of a finitely remote past that accumulates in finite stage steps [think, years for convenience] to reach now. This still obtains if we do not explicitly refer to a specific transfinite value but leave it implicit in the ellipsis. While we may use a loose form of words to talk about a beginningless temporal-causal past that accumulates in finite stages to now, that has serious challenges to be credibly justified on examining causal succession by cumulative finite stages. Where, causal is crucial, we have contingent successive stages. I suggest, a succession of contingent stages does not attain cumulatively to independent, necessary being as causally adequate world root. We need an entity that rises above the contingent, temporal-causal physical order.
As for the legitimacy of w as a number that may be referenced in the general context of natural counting numbers and their additive inverses etc, I am always bearing in mind the surreals framework and the hyperreals, as I have discussed in this blog and in this general context of concerns many times across the span of years. Notice, my phrasing above highlights that we cannot extend from some imagined last finite to a successor step by increment of one step which is suddenly becoming transfinite. Where also, let us not overlook transfinite induction. Here, Wiki's summary:
Transfinite induction is an extension of mathematical induction to well-ordered sets, for example to sets of ordinal numbers or cardinal numbers. [--> which of course includes the transfinites w and beyond] Let P(a) be a property defined for all ordinals a. [--> I used a for alpha and will use similar substitutions, where ordinals here includes transfinites] Suppose that whenever P(b) is true for all b LT a, then P(a) is also true. Then transfinite induction tells us that P is true for all ordinals. Usually the proof is broken down into three cases: Zero case: Prove that P(0) is true. Successor case: Prove that for any successor ordinal a+1, P(a+1) follows from P(a) (and, if necessary, P(b) for all b LT a). Limit case: Prove that for any limit ordinal L, P(L) follows from [P(b) for all b LT L]. All three cases are identical except for the type of ordinal considered. They do not formally need to be considered separately, but in practice the proofs are typically so different as to require separate presentations. Zero is sometimes considered a limit ordinal and then may sometimes be treated in proofs in the same case as limit ordinals.
Clearly, it is reasonable to envision a succession of ordinal numbers (notice, successive steps) that ranges out into the zone of transfinites. And as the surreals show, we can form and use a mirror image on 0, giving negative values. Now coming back to your objection in 28:
re 25: Omega is not a real number, so the expression k-w is meaningless in respect to the real number line.
First, I was NOT speaking to reals as such but to ordinals, ranked successive steps, which are perhaps the easiest context to bring out transfinites. (I add, the easiest way to get to a hyper-continuum is to use reciprocals tied to the span of ordinals that goes beyond the naturals, so 1/x is a catapult function, allowing a cloud of reciprocal values between 0 and 1 including first for 0 infinitesimals closer to 0 than any 1/n n a natural. Use the usual interpolation property to identify that there is no distinct nearest number to any particular number in the span [0,1] Then in effect shift by addition so between successive ordinals we interpose a continuous block. Bring on the surreals, and see that for reals any particular value is in effect an w-length succession of closer steps, effectively a power series that has a whole part and a fraction that eventually traps the desired value pi or e or whatever. This views say decimal numerals as compressed power series.) Coming back, let us notice that my argument was that we cannot justify a causal-temporal succession of finite stages (years is convenient but not strictly correct) from a claimed beginningless past to now. We can justify a finite succession, bound in the past, i.e. implying a beginning. I used a suggested reference point K, n steps antecedent to now and then took up going beyond K. As we did so, we saw how beyond some K, we face a supertask to see beginningless antecedent stages. We are only justified to speak of a finite past, even in the case where the transfinite past claim is left in an ellipsis. And my pivotal point is not that far removed from your objection that w is not found on a reals line: given, the reals interpolate the natural counting numbers (which are ordinals) we do not have any particular n in N such that its immediate successor is w. Which, can be mirrored to the negatives. What I did at 25 was to take that mirror to show that ascending by succession from a claimed beginingless past does require traversing the transfinite in successive finite stage steps. Which will fail. Even if the transfiniteness is left implicit in an ellipsis. I did so as much has been argued here over several years on the point. That argument I recently revisited using the development of hyperreals to justify comments I made over three years ago originally, which were in fact justified. Coming back to the issue in the main, a physical, causal-temporal succession by finite stages world is not plausibly beginningless, that is it is not a good candidate necessary, world-framework being. Causal-temporal successive physical worlds are credibly contingent, with a beginning (even if one goes beyond a big bang to say a quantum foam sub-verse with spacetime inflating bubbles). The workaround on the obvious beginning at the bang, is unsuccessful, Despite forms of words that may at first seem plausible (as BB suggested and before him Lord Russell et al). We need a necessary being world root with adequate causal capacity to account for our world, with us in it. That points to a powerful being capable of being the source of a world with morally governed creatures that also rise beyond computation on GIGO limited substrates to insightful rationality. Where, rationality is inescapably morally governed. After Euthyphro, Hume and so forth this points to a necessary being world root that is inherently good and utterly wise. KF PS: The surreals allow all sorts of weird and wonderful combinations under which w can be stepped down from to say w/2 in steps (of course transfinitely many), and w+1 or w-1 can be made as reasonable ideas. In 25 above K was a finitely remote value stepped back from N by n steps, which can be interpreted as subtraction. The summary above IN THAT CONTEXT suggests going back w steps beyond K in finite stages precisely in order to show why we cannot do it, transfiniteness here being precisely an emergent property that does not suddenly arise but is recognised. Thus w is the order type, thus stepwise successor, to the naturals. It cannot be stepped up to leading to [w-1] being finite then +1 and poof, magic, w is now suddenly transfinite. As dealing with the negatives is harder (stepping down from implicit transfinitely remote values) I took several steps to get there. Baldly taking the mirror of the positives will be objected to.kairosfocus_{August 18, 2019
August
08
Aug
18
18
2019
02:24 AM
2
02
24
AM
PDT}

BA77 @ 35 That Wigner quotation was nice; I hadn't seen that one before. Especially: "Our knowledge of the external world IS the content of our consciousness and ...... consciousness, therefore, cannot be denied." Precisely! So again, how can one present evidence for matter existing without mind? (Any more than, as BB pointed out, mind existing without matter.) Here's a thought experiment for materialists. How do you know a table exists? The materialist might answer "because I can see it and touch it". Well, what about if you're blind and have massive peripheral neuropathy? "Well," the materialist might say, "I might smell the wood of the table; I might hear it creaking; I guess I could taste its surface." OK, so what if ALL your senses were non functioning? How would you know the table existed? The materialist might answer "I personally wouldn't, but other people would, and that's enough." OK, now what happens if there are NO other people? Come to that, imagine ALL sentient life from bacteria to amoebas to self-aware beings, is suddenly removed from the universe. How then could the table be said to exist? How indeed could the universe be said to exist? There would be no shapes, textures, colours, sounds, brightnesses, darknesses, smells or spatial relationships in such a universe. If it existed at all, it would consist of a swirling mass of mathematical probability functions - which could hardly be said to be "matter". So yes, BB is right - we have yet to observe mind disconnected from matter. But we are also yet to observe matter disconnected from mind - indeed, the very act of observation would be impossible!Charles Birch_{August 18, 2019
August
08
Aug
18
18
2019
12:48 AM
12
12
48
AM
PDT}

And so it is with the alleged transfinite past- not mathematically meaningful. That was the point.ET_{August 17, 2019
August
08
Aug
17
17
2019
08:59 PM
8
08
59
PM
PDT}

kf followed that with "That is the transfinite remove beyond k cannot credibly be spanned in finite stage successive steps." But there is no such thing as a "transfinite remove" beyond k. That is my point. If all kf means is we can always keep counting, then of course that is true. But his use of k-w and "transfinite remove" are not mathematically meaningful.hazel_{August 17, 2019
August
08
Aug
17
17
2019
08:47 PM
8
08
47
PM
PDT}

hazel:
You can’t subtract a transfinite number from a finite number, so k-w is meaningless.
That explains why kairosfocus said: "... but we can never justify a count like k-(m+[w-1]), k-w, where w is transfinite, omega." Or do you not understand that?ET_{August 17, 2019
August
08
Aug
17
17
2019
08:25 PM
8
08
25
PM
PDT}

Transfinite refers to a number larger than any finite number. Omega is the first (smallest) transfinite ordinal number. You can't subtract a transfinite number from a finite number, so k-w is meaningless. Omega is not a number or quantity on the real number line. I'll note that you have not addressed these specific points.hazel_{August 17, 2019
August
08
Aug
17
17
2019
08:08 PM
8
08
08
PM
PDT}

hazel, buy a dictionary and look up the word "transfinite".ET_{August 17, 2019
August
08
Aug
17
17
2019
07:40 PM
7
07
40
PM
PDT}

ET, you write, "And you cannot get to infinity, either." However, if you can't "get to" infinity, then saying that k-w means "from some real number, k to the transfinite, Omega", which you wrote earlier, is contradictory. But, to repeat in different words, k-w is meaningless because the only thing you can subtract from a real number is another real number, and w is not a real number.hazel_{August 17, 2019
August
08
Aug
17
17
2019
04:44 PM
4
04
44
PM
PDT}

Omega is the name. That's all. And yes it pertains to real numbers on the number line. And you cannot get to infinity, either. But there are numbers all along the journey...ET_{August 17, 2019
August
08
Aug
17
17
2019
04:28 PM
4
04
28
PM
PDT}

Charles Birch at 27 is in VERY good company when he asks,
Have we got evidence of matter existing without mind? Where is such evidence? Absent the existence of mind, how could we ever have any evidence of matter? How would it be possible to demonstrate the existence of matter which persists independently of mind, without the existence of mind?
To wit
“No, I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.” Max Planck (1858–1947), the main founder of quantum theory, The Observer, London, January 25, 1931 “Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else.” Schroedinger, Erwin. 1984. “General Scientific and Popular Papers,” in Collected Papers, Vol. 4. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences. Friedr. Vieweg & Sohn, Braunschweig/Wiesbaden. p. 334. “The principal argument against materialism is not that illustrated in the last two sections: that it is incompatible with quantum theory. The principal argument is that thought processes and consciousness are the primary concepts, that our knowledge of the external world is the content of our consciousness and that the consciousness, therefore, cannot be denied. On the contrary, logically, the external world could be denied—though it is not very practical to do so. In the words of Niels Bohr, “The word consciousness, applied to ourselves as well as to others, is indispensable when dealing with the human situation.” In view of all this, one may well wonder how materialism, the doctrine that “life could be explained by sophisticated combinations of physical and chemical laws,” could so long be accepted by the majority of scientists." – Eugene Wigner, Remarks on the Mind-Body Question, pp 167-177.
To add insult to injury, due to advances in science, especially advances in quantum mechanics, it turns out that atoms themselves are found not to be the solid indivisible concrete particles, as they were originally envisioned to be by materialists, but it turns out that the descriptions we now use to describe atoms themselves, the further down we go, dissolve into “abstract conceptual tools for describing nature, which themselves seem to lack any real, concrete essence.,,,”
Physics Is Pointing Inexorably to Mind So-called “information realism” has some surprising implications By Bernardo Kastrup – March 25, 2019 Excerpt: according to the Greek atomists, if we kept on dividing things into ever-smaller bits, at the end there would remain solid, indivisible particles called atoms, imagined to be so concrete as to have even particular shapes. Yet, as our understanding of physics progressed, we’ve realized that atoms themselves can be further divided into smaller bits, and those into yet smaller ones, and so on, until what is left lacks shape and solidity altogether. At the bottom of the chain of physical reduction there are only elusive, phantasmal entities we label as “energy” and “fields”—abstract conceptual tools for describing nature, which themselves seem to lack any real, concrete essence.,,, https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/physics-is-pointing-inexorably-to-mind/
In fact, according to quantum theory, the most fundamental ‘stuff’ of the world is not even matter or energy, (as Darwinian materialists originally presupposed) but is 'abstract' immaterial information itself
“The most fundamental definition of reality is not matter or energy, but information–and it is the processing of information that lies at the root of all physical, biological, economic, and social phenomena.” Vlatko Vedral – Professor of Physics at the University of Oxford, and CQT (Centre for Quantum Technologies) at the National University of Singapore, and a Fellow of Wolfson College – a recognized leader in the field of quantum mechanics. “It is operationally impossible to separate Reality and Information” (48:35 minute mark) “In the beginning was the Word” John 1:1 (49:54 minute mark) Prof Anton Zeilinger speaks on quantum physics. at UCT https://youtu.be/s3ZPWW5NOrw?t=2984
Thus, in irony of ironies, not even the material particles themselves turn to be are ‘real’ and concrete, (on the materialistic definition of what is ‘real’ and concrete), but turn out to be “abstract” immaterial information. This puts the die-hard materialist in quite the conundrum because, as Bernardo Kastrup further explains in his article, to make sense of this conundrum of a non-material world of pure abstractions we must ultimately appeal to an immaterial mind. i.e. we must ultimately appeal to God!
Physics Is Pointing Inexorably to Mind So-called “information realism” has some surprising implications By Bernardo Kastrup – March 25, 2019 Excerpt: “To make sense of this conundrum,,, we must stick to what is most immediately present to us: solidity and concreteness are qualities of our experience. The world measured, modeled and ultimately predicted by physics is the world of perceptions, a category of mentation. The phantasms and abstractions reside merely in our descriptions of the behavior of that world, not in the world itself.,,, Where we get lost and confused is in imagining that what we are describing is a non-mental reality underlying our perceptions, as opposed to the perceptions themselves. We then try to find the solidity and concreteness of the perceived world in that postulated underlying reality. However, a non-mental world is inevitably abstract. And since solidity and concreteness are felt qualities of experience—what else?—we cannot find them there. The problem we face is thus merely an artifact of thought, something we conjure up out of thin air because of our theoretical habits and prejudices.,,, As I elaborate extensively in my new book, The Idea of the World, none of this implies solipsism. The mental universe exists in mind but not in your personal mind alone. Instead, it is a transpersonal field of mentation that presents itself to us as physicality—with its concreteness, solidity and definiteness—once our personal mental processes interact with it through observation. This mental universe is what physics is leading us to, not the hand-waving word games of information realism. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/physics-is-pointing-inexorably-to-mind/
Or to put it much more simply, as Physics professor Richard Conn Henry put it at the end of the following article, “The Universe is immaterial — mental and spiritual. Live, and enjoy.”
The mental Universe – Richard Conn Henry The only reality is mind and observations, but observations are not of things. To see the Universe as it really is, we must abandon our tendency to conceptualize observations as things. Excerpt: “The Universe is immaterial — mental and spiritual. Live, and enjoy.” – Richard Conn Henry is a Professor in the Henry A. Rowland Department of Physics and Astronomy, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/The.mental.universe.pdf
Of supplemental note: The Darwinian materialist, in his rejection of God, simply has no anchor for reality to grab onto: As I have pointed out several times now, assuming Naturalism instead of Theism as the worldview on which all of science is based leads to the catastrophic epistemological failure of science itself.
Basically, because of reductive materialism (and/or methodological naturalism), the atheistic materialist is forced to claim that he is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ (Coyne, Dennett, etc..), who has the illusion of free will (Harris), who has unreliable beliefs about reality (Plantinga), who has illusory perceptions of reality (Hoffman), who, since he has no real time empirical evidence substantiating his grandiose claims, must make up illusory “just so stories” with the illusory, and impotent, ‘designer substitute’ of natural selection (Behe, Gould, Sternberg), so as to ‘explain away’ the appearance (i.e. illusion) of design (Crick, Dawkins), and who must make up illusory meanings and purposes for his life since the reality of the nihilism inherent in his atheistic worldview is too much for him to bear (Weikart), and who must also hold morality to be subjective and illusory since he has rejected God (Craig, Kreeft). Bottom line, nothing is real in the atheist’s worldview, least of all, morality, meaning and purposes for life.,,, – Darwin’s Theory vs Falsification – video – 39:45 minute mark https://youtu.be/8rzw0JkuKuQ?t=2387
Thus, although the Darwinist may firmly believes he is on the terra firma of science (in his appeal, even demand, for methodological naturalism), the fact of the matter is that, when examining the details of his materialistic/naturalistic worldview, it is found that Darwinists/Atheists are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to. It would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science than Atheistic materialism and/or methodological naturalism have turned out to be.
2 Corinthians 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
bornagain77_{August 17, 2019
August
08
Aug
17
17
2019
04:28 PM
4
04
28
PM
PDT}

But "the transfinite Omega" is not a place on the real number line that you can "get to". Omega is a number about the real number line (actually the natural numbers on the number line), but it is not a number on on the number line.hazel_{August 17, 2019
August
08
Aug
17
17
2019
03:54 PM
3
03
54
PM
PDT}

Omega is (the) transfinite. So, from some real number, k to the transfinite, OmegaET_{August 17, 2019
August
08
Aug
17
17
2019
03:43 PM
3
03
43
PM
PDT}

So, ET, what is the meaning of k-w, where k is a real number and w is omega?hazel_{August 17, 2019
August
08
Aug
17
17
2019
03:31 PM
3
03
31
PM
PDT}

hazel, You aren't even paying attention. Omega, in the context of what kairosfocus is saying, refers to the transfinite. And just like infinity, it is not a number. But it does pertain to actual numbers on the number line.ET_{August 17, 2019
August
08
Aug
17
17
2019
03:24 PM
3
03
24
PM
PDT}

1 2 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply