Pyrrho

One could also dispute the claim that the universe had a beginning. You could argue for how that might be possible thusly:

As things are now, it appears that the known universe is expanding. It could be that things are going fast enough that the gravitational pull from all of the other things will not be enough to prevent everything from continuing to move further apart. Or it could be that they are not moving fast enough to prevent the gravitational pull from pulling everything toward everything else. If this second possibility is correct, then everything will gradually slow down, after moving very far apart, and then reverse direction, toward everything else. As things will be very far apart by then (they already are very far apart), they will have plenty of time to gain momentum from the gravitational pull of everything else, so everything will be moving very fast toward each other. When they collide, it will be a kind of big bang, and everything will ricochet off in all directions, thus starting the process of expansion all over again. Perhaps this has been going on forever, and the universe had no beginning.

One of the essential things to remember is that I don't need to prove that that is what has actually happened. As long as it is possible, then there is a problem with the claim that the universe had a beginning. There would need to be some kind of evidence that the universe had a beginning; otherwise, we may regard it as an unfounded claim, and ignore any argument based upon such an unfounded claim. Remember, I am not saying that the above is what has happened, only that it may have happened that way, as far as we know.

And you are overlooking something: Click on "Cosmological Arguments" on the page to which you provided a link.

Answerer

Guys, think of the entire universe system cycle as a circle, is there a starting point?

Defiant Heretic

The expansion of the universe prevents it from reaching this equilibrium. (Scientific American Volume 12, Number 2)

Bob K

If a philosophy can be defined to be a set of (A) concepts, mental representations of things, objects, (B) principles, mental representations of events, relationships between and among objects, and (C) techniques, applications of concepts and principles for dealing with reality, for solving problems, problems being how to achieve desires for people, things and events, or how to avoid fears of people/things/events, then we can understand that for each science there is a philosophy consisting of concept/principle/techniques.

Scientists endeavor to validate the concepts/principles/techniques they use for their philosophies by observation and experimentation.

If religion can be defined to be a philosophy which includes a belief in the existence of unobserved unobservables, unverifiable/unfalsifiable/unverified people/things/events, then we can understand that religion has a philosophy, and that the philosophy of religion requires a belief in unobserved unobservables.

Are there concepts/principles/techniques of physics which are unverifiable/unfalsifiable/unverified which function much like beliefs in the existence of unobserved unobservables, gods, in religion?

If you do not create operational definitions of the terms and phrases you want to use in any kind of discussion, then you risk miscommunication not only with other people but within yourself.

One such term/phrase which can be miscommunicated and therefore misunderstood is the concept/principle of the beginning of the universe.

What would be the beginning of the universe?

What would be the ending of the universe?

Before we can answer these questions we have to define what is the universe.

Perhaps an understanding of what is the universe can help us understand if or not the universe could have had a beginning or could have an ending.

What is the universe?

We have observed that matter and energy are two forms of the same phenomenon, matter/energy, physics, and that matter/energy is indestructible, can only be changed in form, matter changeable into energy and energy changeable into matter, as described by E = mc2 and m = E/c2.

Thus, matter/energy is infinite in duration.

Any infinity of duration can be thought of as infinite in past duration as well as infinite in future duration.

These facts strongly suggest that there can be no ending to the universe, and that there was no beginning to the universe.

Further, if we can define space to be the unbounded place in which matter/energy exists, and if we can conceive that space would be a pure vacuum if not for the presence of matter/energy, then we can understand that space, the unbounded location in which all exists, can have no beginning and no ending, and is thus not only infinite in spatial dimensions but is also infinite in temporal duration. I.e. space never had a beginning and can never have an ending.

And if we can define time to be the measurement of the occurrences of events in sequences of events by the use of invariable time-intervals, units of measurement which are not affected by changes of velocity and gravity and therefore constant in the measurement of time, then we find that the measurement of time is infinite in duration from an originating timepoint, T0, forwards into the future and backwards into the past, via the continuum of time:

Infinity Past ... <- T-2 <- T-1 <- T0 -> T+1 -> T+2 -> ... Future Infinity

The philosophy of physics therefore must account for the infinities of space, time and matter/energy, all of which show that there could never, ever, have been a beginning, a something from nothing, and that there will never, ever, be an ending, a something into nothing.

Causality, the sequence of causes causing/creating effects, physical causes causing/creating physical effects, people/things/events comprised of matter/energy causing/creating people/things/events also comprised of matter/energy, can thus be an infinite sequence, no beginning to the sequence, and no ending to the sequence, infinite regression into the past and infinite progression into the future.

The source of causality is, therefore, matter/energy.

What would be the causality of any kind of beginning of the universe? Matter/energy.

What would be the causality of any kind of ending of the universe? Matter/energy.

Is not matter/energy a part of the universe?

How could that which is a part of the universe begin itself from nothing, exist as something, and destroy itself into nothing?

Is there a physical necessity for matter/energy to begin itself and to destroy itself?

There is none.

We thus have ingredients, space, time and matter/energy, each of which have infinities, space, being the unbounded place/location of all there is, having the spatial infinity and the infinity of its duration, time, being the measurement of the occurrences of events in sequences of events using invariable time-intervals as units of measurement, having the temporal infinity, and physics, being matter/energy, having the infinity of indestructibility and therefore duration in time and in space, for creating a concept of the universe, and, therefore, an understanding of what is the universe, and whether or not the universe could could possibly have had a beginning or an ending.

The universe is the combination of the three realities of space, time and physics.

Because each reality--space/time/[physics--has its infinity, and each is infinite in duration, the universe could not have had a beginning nor could it have an ending.

Before any Bangs there was the universe; after any Crunches there was and always will be the universe.

Space, time, and matter/energy prior to Bangs, certainly after Bangs, and prior to, and after, Crunches.

You cannot make matter/energy go away. You cannot make it appear from nothing, and you cannot make it disappear into nothing.

The universe is a closed energy system.

A closed energy system is defined as an energy system from which energy cannot be removed (where would it be removed to/where would it go?) and into which energy cannot be inserted (where would it come from/what would be its source?).

Since there is no place or time into which energy, actually, matter/energy, can go, and no other place and time which can be a source of matter/energy from which matter/energy can be added to the matter/energy already present in the universe, the universe is a closed system, and the matter/energy within is a constant, a finite number (an infinite number, by its nature, cannot be and therefore is not ever a finite number) in accord with the First Law of Thermodynamics.

From the theories of Ilya Prigogine, and others, including plasma physicists, within space there are plasmas, ionized gasses, in which atoms have fewer than normal or more than normal numbers of electrons, and there are energy flows with in the plasmas in space which create increased complexities/conglomerations of energy/matter, and which decrease entropy and therefore negate the potential heat death which seems to be be predicted by the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the inverse relationship of heat and work, the decrease in potential work increasing the entropy of an energy system. Life is a form of increased energy complexity and the more efficient utilization of energy which negates increases in entropy. [See Eric Lerner, The Big Bang Never Happened, for a description of the theories of plasma physicists and of Ilya Prigogine.]

If there any sets of mathematics which appear to make matter/energy appear from nothing and disappear into nothing, then those mathematics do not fit the physics, and are therefore phony mathematics, and the resulting physical claims are invalid.

Further, since space can only itself be, and time can only itself be, and matter/energy can only itself be, and therefore was, is, and will be, there can only be one universe and never, ever, 'multiple universes' or 'parallel universes.'

Again, if the mathematics do not fit the physics, then physical claims resulting from invalid mathematics are invalid.

The universe, particularly matter/energy, is the source of causality, and there is infinite regression of causality into the past and infinite progression of causality into the future.

One of the fallacies of human thought re: infinite regression/progression is the idea that causality somehow creates new matter/energy, as if what was the sum total of matter/energy in the past is somehow increased by a new sum total of matter/energy in the present and in the future.

This is triangular thinking, in which there is a starting point of nothing from which matter/energy expands, with each successive expansion increasing the sum total of matter/energy, like a triangle which has no end to its dimensions.

The matter/energy of the universe must be intuited, conceived of, by block thinking, in which matter/energy is a constant, the sum total of which is a constant., with no increase in the total matter/energy resulting from causality, like a square or cube with limitations to its dimensions.

If we were able to take three-dimensional photographs of the universe, or create successive three-dimensional models of the universe that would function much as three-dimensional photographs, then we would see that there would not be be any increase the matter/energy content of the universe.

Infinite regression? Yes! Infinite progression? Yes! Universe always was? Universe forever? Yes!

Your choice: Block Thinking = Yes/Right/True; Triangular Thinking = No/Wrong/False.

Again, without operational definitions of terms/phrases, concept/principles in theoretical physics can take on the mysticism we find in religious superstitions, and those philosophies of theoretical physics thus become religions.

Since we know that religion crystallizes thought and impedes progress, religion-like theories of physics crystallize theories of physics and impede progress.

Space, time and matter/energy are infinite in duration, and comprise the one-and-only universe, therefore the universe had no beginning, exists now, and will have no ending.

Causality has no beginning, exists now, and has no ending, therefore infinite regression into the past is possible but so is infinite progression into the future.

The source of causality is the universe itself, particularly matter/energy.

When people look for first causes in regressions or final effects in progression, they are actually, without necessarily realizing so, looking for the source of causality.

Some people claim a god is the source of causality. but then they have the problem of explaining how it is that if one thing in the universe, a god, which was not caused, how it is that other things in the universe have to have causes.

Nevertheless, when people search for first causes and final effects they are searching for the source of causality.

The source of causality has been found, the universe, particularly its matter/energy. And it has been found to be infinite in duration, therefore, it could not have been caused nor can it ever be destroyed.

Torben

Wow, Bob K. Impressive. It's gonna take me a while to digest this, although I'm getting wary already due to this little detail:

Life does not negate entropy increases. Shut life up in an airtight, adiabatic box and you will see this to be a fact. 2lot deals with closed systems, life is not one such. The entropy decrease of life is very much overcompensated by the entropy increase of the sun.

How do you explain the implications of an expanding universe (Big Bang) if all the matter of the universe is constant?


Regards,
Torben

Bob K

Torben

The entire universe, of which life is a part, is a closed system.

According to Lerner/Prigogine, life forms increase the effective use of energy and therefore decrease the entropy.

Also, plasma flows [big time stuff compared to life] = energy flows which develop complexities which produce decreases in entropy which balance increases in entropy from other astronomical events.

One fact that no one seems willing to deal with is that the universe has not yet died a heat death, and there must be an explanation for this fact, especially since the universe, according to Operational Physics [universe = space/time/physics = infinite duration], has been around forever and therefore had more than enough time, infinite time, to run itself down into heat death.

Plasma flows, movements of electrons, might provide such a means by which the universe will continue forever.

The universe is not expanding. It cannot, because it is what it is and is therefore limited to being what it is.

Matter/energy can expand in the sense of spatial separation of chunks of matter/energy from each other, but matter/energy cannot be expanded in the sense of something coming from nothing, in the sense of an increase in the sum total of matter/energy.

The kind of thinking required to believe that the universe, particularly the matter/energy in the universe, is expanding is triangular thinking, which requires belief in something from nothing since there is only nothing which can provide additional matter/energy, which is absurd.

There will be areas of space which will be pure vacuums, areas in which there is no matter/energy, and no force fields, meaning no gravitational fields.

Why?

Because you cannot expand a finite and constant quantity of matter/energy into an infinite quantity of space.

Thus, space is not and will not be homogeneous, and our observations of the presence of astronomical stuffs such as moons, planets, stars, galaxies, etc., prove that space is not homogeneous, that the clumps of matter/energy we call moons/planets/stars/etc. have more mass within them and are certainly thicker than areas of space surrounding them.

SULPHUR

I have read a little about this and it makes think about what is happening everywhere and is it of any consequence. The classic example ; a tree in a forest falls to the ground. No one sees it or hears it fall to the ground. Where does the cause and effect come into the grander scheme of things. Can one quark change the world. I would say yes but we would see no effect. It was just a random event.

King's Indian

Hello, Bob!

You look like just the chap to ask, considering I'm not as up on this as you are...

The sequence quoted at the top is (I think) analogized from your point about duration. I understand that an infinite series can be extended both ways, but is that a necessary condition for such a series? I thought that, starting from "1", you could then go: 2, 3, 4, etc. and you would have an infinite series without worrying too much about -1, -2, -3...That seems right, but then I read in a book that Dirac's field equations on particle spin caused an enormous hoo-hah, with lots of physicists holding their nose with one hand, and pulling an imaginary chain with another*, until someone actually found positrons. How do physicists come to decide when the maths is a bit too far-fetched?

Thanks,

KI.

* I'm abstracting from historical fact, obviously.

Bob K

King's Indian

For the temporal reality, the continuum of time, we need a starting point from which we can measure time both forwards and backwards, which is why T0 is chosen as an arbitrary starting timepoint.

We are dealing with an infinite duration, thus any other starting point such as T0 -> T+1 -> T+2 ... etc. or T0 -> T-1 -> T-2 ... etc. would not enable us to count both forwards and backwards.

Because matter/energy is indestructible and therefore infinite in duration, we have reason to believe that something comes from something and nothing comes from nothing and something does not disappear into nothing.

There is always the possibility that we may discover matter/energy in forms not yet observed or identified.

When we see physical phenomena which controvert known facts there is no reason to believe that we are dealing with logical absurdities, such as somethings coming from nothings, or somethings changing to nothings, but instead, we ought to consider at least two possibilities: (A) we do not completely understand an observed phenomenon or (B) we are observing a new phenomenon for which we must focus upon the observations that would enable us to develop and test hypotheses.

Perhaps the Dirac field equations are an example of B. I am not familiar with them, therefore I am not in a position to judge.

Also, if mathematics do not fit the known physics, they may yet be valid for undiscovered physics, as may have been the case with the Dirac field equations.

The point is that we need not worship mathematics when the mathematics do not fit the physics, or common sense, for that matter/energy [intellectual pun therein, if you have read my Replies carefully].

Where Relativity describes big stuffs and Quantum Mechanics describes little stuffs, but R conflicts with QM, which do we worship?

Or are they merely partial descriptions of reality awaiting the Next Big Thing--the NBT, the Theory of Everything--the TOE, the Grand Unification Theory--GUT?

eh

If you want to be more precise, yes. But there will still be something close enough to a heat death, where most energy will be in the form of EM radiation, and the universe is a cold and empty place. No galaxies, no stars, no planets.

On the other hand, maybe inflation models such as the "self reproducing universe" could allow for an infinitely old cosmos. If the universe is infinite in extent, I suppose there would be local regions that undergo inflation, while most of space would be a uniform vacuum. Too bad it's all speculation at this point.