eternity - a clarification

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Certainly it's a well explored concept, and it may explain some things about the universe that current big bang models don't, but that's why you create a model - to solve a problem. It's little surprise then that it solves the problems it was created to solve. In the absence of being testable however, it remains speculative, rather than being anything ltiverse concept is out and out wrong, I'm just saying it is speculative and untestable.

Gee, just like evolution according to the fundies! Linde is talking about the possibility of building a universe in a lab; does that sound "untestable" to you????

EDIT: http://www.stanford.edu/%7Ealinde/SpirQuest.doc Section 8.

I'm working through the article a third time; for a bunch of silly, pseudo-science it sure is hard!

Originally posted by Conrau K
I disagree. Knightmeister was arguing that eternity implied that God does not need a beginning whereas atheists do require a beginning in their understanding of the univervse. It thus becomes a discussion on the "beginning of the universe" and whehter such a concept is feasible.

[b/]And one shouldn't claim that well-respected scientific theories regardin e we disagree, a) it not germane to this thread and b) the "respectedness" is disputable.

If people are going to make claims that time necessarily exists only in this universe and/or that this universe is the ONLY possible one, then the refutation of such nonsense is quite "germane" to the thread. Inflation Theory which leads to multiverses is a major theory in cosmology which explains some rather large problems in prior models of the Big Bang. It;s about as "mainstream" as you can get. The Many Worlds Interpretation is either the no1 or rather close no2 interpretation related to Quantum Mechanics, probably the most successful single theory in scientific history. Both might be wrong but that they are respected by those with expertise in the field is beyond serious question.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Gee, just like evolution according to the fundies! Linde is talking about the possibility of building a universe in a lab; does that sound "untestable" to you????

EDIT: http://www.stanford.edu/%7Ealinde/SpirQuest.doc Section 8.

I'm working through the article a third time; for a bunch of silly, pseudo-science it sure is hard!

I never said it was pseudo-science, so stop putting words into my mouth. The exploration of concepts and their subsequent testing is what science is all about. The thing is though, if a concept isn't testable it can't even be classed as a hypothesis let alone a theory.

This is completely different from evolutionary theory, where the evidence (diversity of life, genetic adaptations, diversification of genomes, speciation, fossil record) is plentiful and diverse.

You're getting very pithy about this now. I will happily accept that some physicists out there think this is correct, and it can be worked into their maths easily and maybe even gives good results, but until somebody actually measures an alternate universe then multiverses will remain speculative, rather than hard scientific fact.

You've tried to portray me in the same light as some of the fundamental christians here, Marauder, and I don't appreciate it. The thing about being a good scientist is that you have to be absolutely rigid with your rules about how you treat ideas and data. I can't just accept the concept of a multiverse as a fact simply because a scientist said it, nor can i discount out-of-hand everything every christian says - I have to evaluate everything on it's own merits. The multiverse concept is not without merit, but it's not currently, nor I suspect will it ever be, testable.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
I never said it was pseudo-science, so stop putting words into my mouth. The exploration of concepts and their subsequent testing is what science is all about. The thing is though, if a concept isn't testable it can't even be classed as a hypothesis let alone a theory.

This is completely different from evolutionary theory, where the evidence (diver t is not without merit, but it's not currently, nor I suspect will it ever be, testable.

Try reading the actual article rather than holding your breath till you turn blue. You can stamp your feet and screech "Not Testable" all you want, but various recent observations of data have been consistent with Inflation Theory. Linde's argument that Inflation Theory leads inexorably to the Multiverse is compelling. Direct observation is not required in cosmology as you well know; measurement of effect often suffices.

Whether you like it or not, you are doing the same thing as the fundies; purposefully remaining ignorant of the details of a theory, then attacking it as "untestable" and then making universal assertions that are inconsistent with the most recent scientific understandings. Say hello to dj2becker when you see him!

EDIT: No one suggested that you treat the Multiverse concept as a "fact", so you put that Strawman back in the field. I do insist that you not make factual assertions of things that are reasonably disputed by knowledgeable people in the field.

Originally posted by no1marauder
If people are going to make claims that time necessarily exists only in this universe and/or that this universe is the ONLY possible one, then the refutation of such nonsense is quite "germane" to the thread. Inflation Theory which leads to multiverses is a major theory in cosmology which explains some rather large problems in prior models of the Big Ban ...[text shortened]... but that they are respected by those with expertise in the field is beyond serious question.

I still dont see how the inflation theory ties into the "something out of nothing" concept.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Try reading the actual article rather than holding your breath till you turn blue. You can stamp your feet and screech "Not Testable" all you want, but various recent observations of data have been consistent with Inflation Theory. Linde's argument that Inflation Theory leads inexorably to the Multiverse is compelling. Direct observation is not required ...[text shortened]... l assertions of things that are reasonably disputed by knowledgeable people in the field.

I will try once more to explain, stuff in this universe is nothing more than connected-sums from one side of Minkowski space to the other.
Bearing in mind that measurements of this universe is limited to four dimensions, its easy to see that the connections are bands between knots on a higher dimensional manifold.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[

It's not my obsession with causality it's science's. If you give me permission to bypass causal logic and basic reasoning I will be able to rip apart any scientific theory or argument you care to mention.

There is no such thing sa causal logic!!!!!
Causality is what we observe. If I repeatedly watch the same event and see that another event a ...[text shortened]... we are looking at the spectral emmissions which give a rough estimate of the substances present.

So we make a 'rough estimate' based on our observations of the universe and spectral emmissions...good...but what logic are you using to make that estimate.? You are assuming that the universe is rationally consistent and that mars bars do not give out these spectral emissions. Problem here though...how do you make logical projections millions of light years into the universe? You use logic and reason.The same logic I use to back up my argument. Since you have yet to show any reason why I should believe that life can just 'appear ' out of completely zilch and as far as I know the scientific eveidence is far from conclusive that this could happen , then it seems rational to view this proposition as unlikely and paradoxical. Therefore the proposition of eternity continues to seem more logical by process of elimination. Is there a particular place in the universe where science has observed nothing , a place of no mass,energy, time,dimension of any kind? Enlighten me, I'd be genuinely interested.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Why can't eternity have a beginning?
Eternity implies infinity.
Infinity can have a beginning.

The reason why eternity can't have a beginning is because then it would not be eternity anymore. You so easily confuse eternity with infinity because they seem the same but infact they are apples and oranges. Eternity is always infinitely bigger than infinity because eternity has an extra dimension stretching backwards as well as forwards.

I'll give you an example. Imagine a 2 dimensional 'object' that was 1cm by 1cm , and now imagine a 2 dimensional object 1000,000,000 cm by an infinite number of cm. Which one has more mass in comparison with a golf ball? The small one or the big one? Of course the answer is that they are both immeasurably less in mass because it's a question of dimension not quantity. The idea that infinity implies eternity is like saying the large 2 dimensional 'object' implies a 3d object. So why can't a 2d thing have 3dimensions? Because it would cease to a 2d thing. EASY!

There's too much confusion in this whole thread about what eternity is , infinity is , something finite , even the definition of nothing seems to change from absolute zilch into 'some stuff' . I feel I have been rigorously consistent in my definitions of these terms throughout , can those around me honestly say the same? Come on guys it's not that hard, eternity - no beginning , no end. Infinity - a beginning but no end. Finite stuff - do I really have to explain that one? Nothing - MEANS nooooothing! Am I missing something here?

Originally posted by knightmeister
The reason why eternity can't have a beginning is because then it would not be eternity anymore. You so easily confuse eternity with infinity because they seem the same but infact they are apples and oranges. Eternity is always infinitely bigger than infinity because eternity has an extra dimension stretching backwards as well as forwards.

I'll giv have to explain that one? Nothing - MEANS nooooothing! Am I missing something here?

The question remains though, if there is no time outside of this universe, is the concept of eternity logical? I.e. can eternity exist independantly of time?

Oh, and I fundamentally disagree with your first paragraph. Eternity by your definition would simply be infinite time, irrespective of direction. Anyhoo, backwards and forwards require dimensions to exist within. Back to the same old problem, if there are no dimensions, there can be no eternity.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
The question remains though, if there is no time outside of this universe, is the concept of eternity logical? I.e. can eternity exist independantly of time?

Oh, and I fundamentally disagree with your first paragraph. Eternity by your definition would simply be infinite time, irrespective of direction. Anyhoo, backwards and forwards require dimens ...[text shortened]... ist within. Back to the same old problem, if there are no dimensions, there can be no eternity.

You are quite correct.This is a good point. If eternity was just infinite time backwards forwards or both then it would just be an expression of time anyway. I've been thinking about your ideas about time and it occurred to me that time in a sense is both an abstract concept and real at the same time. Time only 'happens' when you have a series of linked events occuring one after the other. So unless you have something happening then time doesn't express itself or cannot be.

But can you say time is a 'real' thing in the same way as say gravity or the sun is real.? You can measure time , but not in the same way as you can measure a proton or an electric field. What is time made of? What constitutes it? Is it carbon based (lol)? You could say time is a human construction. Time is dependant on matter and 3 dimensional space. The concept of eternity is that it is essentially timeless but this only matters if time is proven to be a fundamentally important component of things existing. In my mind though, time seems dependent on matter and causality rather than the other way round. I have never argued that the concept of eternity is without it's difficulties just that it's a heck of a lot more logical than believing life just popped out of absolutley zilch. There is no answer to this question that can be easily understood so we have to choose the lesser of two evils and go for the hard to imagine solution rather than the paradoxical solution. My feeling is that you over estimate the importance or 'substance' of time and don't allow for a possible extra dimension to existence.

Originally posted by knightmeister
You are quite correct.This is a good point. If eternity was just infinite time backwards forwards or both then it would just be an expression of time anyway. I've been thinking about your ideas about time and it occurred to me that time in a sense is both an abstract concept and real at the same time. Time only 'happens' when you have a series of linke e or 'substance' of time and don't allow for a possible extra dimension to existence.

Perhaps. My feeling is that time is another dimension of reality.

The thing about the something out of nothing concept is that no matter how unlikely it is to happen, if your concept of eternity is real, then it had to happen eventually - simple probability.

Originally posted by knightmeister
So we make a 'rough estimate' based on our observations of the universe and spectral emmissions...good...but what logic are you using to make that estimacte.? You are assuming that the universe is rationally consistent and that mars bars do not give out these spectral emissions. Problem here though...how do you make logical projections millions of ligh ...[text shortened]... e of no mass,energy, time,dimension of any kind? Enlighten me, I'd be genuinely interested.

Where is there nothing? hmmmm.... let me think....vaccums? they are defined by having nothing in them.

Now I should warn you. There are a few philosphers on this site. They have tried to correct you that "something out of nothing" is not logically inconsistent. They have also posted that there is no such thing as causal logic. The idea of causality only applies to science. Nothing else. And even then only to classical science. And ccausality has nothing to do with the concept of something out of nothing anyway.

Also, the phenomenon of something out of nothing HAS been observed.

Originally posted by knightmeister
The reason why eternity can't have a beginning is because then it would not be eternity anymore. You so easily confuse eternity with infinity because they seem the same but infact they are apples and oranges. Eternity is always infinitely bigger than infinity because eternity has an extra dimension stretching backwards as well as forwards.

I'll giv ...[text shortened]... have to explain that one? Nothing - MEANS nooooothing! Am I missing something here?

The reason why eternity can't have a beginning is because then it would not be eternity anymore.
Damn. Now I cant have eternal life since I have a beginning.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Where is there nothing? hmmmm.... let me think....vaccums? they are defined by having nothing in them.

Now I should warn you. There are a few philosphers on this site. They have tried to correct you that "something out of nothing" is not logically inconsistent. They have also posted that there is no such thing as causal logic. The idea of causality only ...[text shortened]... out of nothing anyway.

Also, the phenomenon of something out of nothing HAS been observed.

Sorry..but a vacuum is NOT nothing because in order to have a vacuum you have to have a 3 dimensional space to create it or for it to exist in. Therefore this 'nothing' has dimensions . You can measure a vacuum but 'nothing' (as I keep pointing out) doesn't exist so is logically not measurable. Only things that exist can be measured. Go back to the drawing board and try again.Your concept of nothing is way, way too substantial.
Philosophically you have to say 'they' when you refer to vacuums which means they exist (which means you have immediately destroyed your own argument) . You see the moment you prove I am wrong by saying 'look at this , it's nothing' is the very moment you actually prove me right by admitting it exists(and things that exist are not nothing). It's logically impossible if you think deeply about it because the only way you can prove me wrong is to defeat yourself anyway.

So please, tell me about this 'something from nothing' phenomenon!! Everyone keeps talking about it but they always end up talking about something instead of nothing. I'm all ears!

Causal logic is a term I plucked out of the air , maybe I should just call it plain old logic.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Perhaps. My feeling is that time is another dimension of reality.

The thing about the something out of nothing concept is that no matter how unlikely it is to happen, if your concept of eternity is real, then it had to happen eventually - simple probability.

No ,I don't subscribe to an eternity of nothingness but even if I did I think that if there really was a point at which zilch 'existed' then it would most likely 'carry on' being zilch for all 'time'. Probability implies some cause anyway.

Time another dimension of reality? That sounds a bit mystical for you.