Hawkingfan

The universe is between ten to twenty thousand million years old. The initial state of the universe was a singularity. What's the problem?

Hawkingfan

I think this is wrong. There must be space for time to exist. No space, no time.

Normal

To my knowledge, the only reason cosmologists would say time doesn't exist is by Occam's Razor.

acronos

A calculation is required to solve the phrase, "If an infinite amount of moments have to pass before we can get to the present, when will we arrive at the present?" One cannot answer this question without attempting some form of calculation. This calculation requires determining the difference between a beginning point and an ending point. To solve your phrase one must place a beginning point at the beginning of the universe and an ending point at now. One must place an infinity between these two points. Then one would use this information to evaluate when we would arrive at the present. You correctly conclude that this is impossible. It is impossible because infinity cannot have TWO endpoints. However, nothing in reality requires that we have crossed all the moments from infinity to now. The universe could have just always existed and therefore have no beginning and NEVER HAVE CROSSED THAT INFINITY. In this thinking time just exists; it was not crossed. We are just meandering through some portion of that infinity. I phrase it this way because if you don't believe in real infinities, you certainly don't believe they can be crossed. So, I won't go into how your inconsistency could be resolved by crossing infinities which I believe can happen.

You conceptualized that there is a beginning of time when you made that your start point for your calculation as I have already demonstrated. I was only stating what was unstated but required to make your statement coherent when I said the "beginning of time."

I am only asserting that these two possibilities are not inconsistant. I have no idea whether the universe is infinitely old or finite. It could consistently be either. Others have done a better job than I could of demonstrating the flaws in your argument that a finite universe is inconsistent.

I think the basic difference between us is our understanding of infinity. I would agree with you if I held your view of infinity and our universe didn't exist that you have proven your point. I agree that there are only two possibilities. The Universe (capital Universe meaning everything, space, time, God, God's space, whatever exists in other dimensions, multiverse, anything we can come up with) either had a beginning or it didn't. Either it is infinitely old or it isn't. However, the fact that the universe exists is conclusive evidence to me that it is possible for it to exist. Therefore, one of those possibilities is correct. So, any theory that states that both possibilities are wrong is guaranteed to be wrong itself due to the physical evidence. Now that we know you have to be wrong, we can look at where your error is. It was obvious to me from the beginning that the error is in your understanding of infinity.

SteveD

thomaq,

I would appreciate a response to my post of May 30 which I will repeat here:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
so would you agree that the options i brought up are irrational?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



No!

My position is that we do not have enough information to determine if they are rational or not.

I think that the two options you have provided:

1) The universe popped out of nothing

and

2) Something has always existed,

Cover all of the possibilities of any possible worldview. I haven't yet seen anyone offer up any other options.

Therefore at least one of them is rational or the universe is fundamentally irrational.

Steve

The AntiChris

Sadly, this is a concept thomaq appears unable to comprehend.

Chris

bd-from-kg

Alix Nenuphar and Wyrdsmyth:

Belated thanks for the kind words. I’m always taken aback a bit when someone compliments one of my posts rather than criticizing it.

thomaq:

Your replies to my last post display little or no comprehension of what I was saying, so there’s no point in replying to them. But I do have a new question.

You say:

Try as I might, I can’t make heads nor tails of this.

First, what’s the distinction in your mind between “impossible” and “irrational”? In what sense can an infinity be “irrational”? Or, if you mean that imagining that an actual infinity might exist is irrational, how is this different from saying that it’s impossible? Surely it’s not irrational to suppose that something possible might exist?

Second ,why do you suppose that actual infinities are impossible (or irrational)? Two examples:

(1) Almost everyone took it for granted that space is Euclidean until this century. But in a Euclidean space one can continue along any straight line indefinitely without either coming back to the starting point or reaching an “end”. (Of course there might be nothing beyond a certain point, but that’s not the same as an end of space itself, is it?) Wouldn’t space itself, in a Euclidean world, be “actually infinite”?

(2) Suppose that we take a piece of stuff and start dividing it. In this world it seems that this process eventually comes to an end as we reach the realm of elementary particles. But certainly one can imagine a world in which this process would never come to an end. Would it not be correct to say that in such a world there are infinitely many particles, or that matter is infinitely divisible? And would this not be an actual infinity?

But aside from counterexamples, I’m stumped as to why you would think that actual infinities are impossible. (Presumably you mean logically impossible? Or if not, what sense of “possible” do you have in mind?) If they really are impossible, there should be some sort of proof or demonstration of this impossibility. But I have no idea what such a demonstration might look like. Could you give us a hint, please?

madmax2976

Hey thomaq,

Again, take all the time you need in responding. I know how hard it can be to find the time.

If you want to arbitrarily define the universe as all that exists that’s fine, however I fail to see why you would be so inclined to effectively eliminate other possibilities.

[quote] but i am willing to use the term universe to mean "our universe as we know it". but my reasoning
would still apply to a metaverse. [quote] And if there is a metaverse, you are familiar with its properties exactly how?

Well since you obviously base this conclusion on the assumption that time in the metaverse would work like time in our universe – that even mathematics would work the same, I don’t find it a very convincing objection. We’re speculating about possibilities here so we need to try to think outside the “box”. I see nothing in your critique that demonstrates #3 is at all irrational. You simply don’t have enough information to make such a judgement.

Since I never said it or agreed to it, how can you agree with me on it? The very concept is quite irrational as “prior” is incoherent without a temporal reference.

Notice that when it comes to these speculations we aren’t necessarily constrained to one alternative. If time is a feature of this universe, those you mention are correct – its incoherent to talk about anything “prior” to this universe. You’ll perhaps notice I’ve said as much myself. But what if time is not a feature of this universe? Talking about a state of affairs prior to the universe would no longer be incoherent. Again, try to think outside the box.

It would seem that until you can prove the time is a feature of only this universe, my #4 appears to still be quite viable, in spite of your claims to the contrary. And just FYI, the difference between your 2b and my 4 is obvious – you are speaking specifically of the universe while I am speaking of a possible state of affairs before the universe.

You seem to be saying (or agreeing) that our inability to determine a reason or cause for the shift constitutes an irrational state of affairs. Frankly, I find this egregiously arrogant. We’re a tiny spec of a little species on a little backwater planet in one galaxy out of billions and you want to presume that our lack of understanding or our ignorance constitutes “irrationality”? You’re far more bold than I.

As for causaility not applying, many have suggested this is exactly the case in the quantum world, so I don’t see where you justify there being “no good reason” to speculate such. As for the relationship between causality and sponteneity, I have no idea what you are talking about.

Now you’re just nitpicking. You defined 2 as the option that the universe has always existed. The 2a and 2b were simply different takes on what such a statement could mean. In the first instance there is an assumed a temporal reference prior to the existence of the universe whereby you can talk of “infinite moments”. In the second, there is an assumed timelessness or a “static” state of affairs as you put it.

No, your 2b referred to the universe itself. My #4 does not. Now if you want to define the universe as including my #4 thats fine, but I’m certainly not constrained by your arbitrary definitions.

If physicists talk about the universe emerging from nothing using a particular definition of nothing and you critique such an idea using a different definition, then it seems to me there’s straw man in there somewhere. Or perhaps eqivocation is a better description. I’ll just repeat that I can conceptualize what physicists like Stenger mean under the usage they employ, while I am unable to do so under the usage you adhere to.

However, as I alluded to, we can avoid this stumbling block all together with my #4.

I think there are some profound issues that have to be addressed here thomaq, before you can reasonably begin to assess the “rationality” of any hypotheses regarding the existence of the universe. Issues such as:

1. Is time a feature of this universe? If it isn’t, then we could coherently talk about “prior” to the universe. If it is, then I unable to grasp any such talk. Your “logical priority” is simply incoherent without a temporal reference, since you could not assess there is a logical priority relationship between two objects without a time base in the first place.

2. Is this universe all that exists? If it is, this will have obvious repercussions as to the possibilities we could hypothesize about. If it isn’t, this opens up many additional possibilities.

3. If our sense of something “beginning” to exist is derived from the features of this universe, can we justifiably assume that this applies to the universe itself? For instance, when we say something “began to exist”, it is always with the understanding of something changing form because that is what the features of this universe show us. If we hypothesize about there being no universe, what does “begin to exist” even mean?

4. If our sense of “rationality” is derived from this universe, will it necessarily be the case that we will be able to make sense of (consider it rational) the existence of the universe itself? In other words, have you considered that possibility, that all our speculations regarding the existense of the universe or reality itself might be “irrational” according to our human standards of what is or is not rational?

I would certainly like to think that the last possibility is not the case. Indeed the best investigative methodology we have – science – operates under the presumption that we will be able to investigate virtually anything, at least in principle. But of course there is no guarantee that this will be so, whether we dislike it or not. Then again, as long as it demonstrates itself to be valuable within the universe, that’ll be suffcient for most of us.