Eternal and Infinite Physical existence?

[shunyadragon]

The question of a 'first cause' in another thread. The purpose of this thread is to evaluate the 'scientific evidence' for or against the existence of an eternal and infinite physical evidence. The existence of an infinite and eternal zero-state field is proposed by most physicists as the 'source' of our universe, and all possible universe.

One not of warning an 'appeal from ignorance ' argumentum ad ignorantiam is no more valid here than an argument as to whether God(s) exist or not.

What should be submitted here is arguments form the perspective of modern math, physics and cosmology.

[magellan004]

The question of a 'first cause' in another thread. The purpose of this thread is to evaluate the 'scientific evidence' for or against the existence of an eternal and infinite physical evidence. The existence of an infinite and eternal zero-state field is proposed by most physicists as the 'source' of our universe, and all possible universe.

One not of warning an 'appeal from ignorance ' argumentum ad ignorantiam is no more valid here than an argument as to whether God(s) exist or not.

What should be submitted here is arguments form the perspective of modern math, physics and cosmology.

So you would reject evidence based on geometry (for example) of an infinite and eternal zero-state field?

Magellan

[phank]

There was a related article on this on page 32 of the March 2012 issue of Scientific American. According to this particular model, the last star burns out in 100 trillion years. At 10^34 years, protons have completed their decay process. And by 10^100 years, galactic-scale black holes will have evaporated. Nothing very "physical" remains at that point.

[shunyadragon]

So you would reject evidence based on geometry (for example) of an infinite and eternal zero-state field?

Magellan

What evidence?

[shunyadragon]

There was a related article on this on page 32 of the March 2012 issue of Scientific American. According to this particular model, the last star burns out in 100 trillion years. At 10^34 years, protons have completed their decay process. And by 10^100 years, galactic-scale black holes will have evaporated. Nothing very "physical" remains at that point.

Yes, this represents a scenario of the 'cold death' demise of all the stars, black holes of our universe. What the question is, Ultimately the energy and matter here still exist, and cannot be destroyed. 'What is the nature of the physical matrix of the physical existence that this energy and matter return to?'

[Jedidiah]

The purpose of this thread is to evaluate the 'scientific evidence' for or against the existence of an eternal and infinite physical evidence. The existence of an infinite and eternal zero-state field is proposed by most physicists as the 'source' of our universe, and all possible universe.

The question came up for 'What is the scientific view of what the first cause would be?' and I responded.

In the "other" thread I specifically asked you for evidence, not the view of most physicists. I was the one asking for evidence, not you. You appear to be sidestepping the issue.

I do not have the math background to deal with the issue, but I have just finished reading, and rereading "A Universe from Nothing by Lawrence M. Krause." Krauss makes an unsupported jump from quantum fluctuations influencing the very early universe to the concept of quantum fluctuations creating matter. He had, or rather he gave, no evidence for any eternal, infinite, zero-state field. If you have such evidence please give it.

[phank]

Yes, this represents a scenario of the 'cold death' demise of all the stars, black holes of our universe. What the question is, Ultimately the energy and matter here still exist, and cannot be destroyed. 'What is the nature of the physical matrix of the physical existence that this energy and matter return to?'

I'm not sure if this question is entirely relevant to anything. Presumably the matter and energy "exist" in the form of quarks (or whatever we wish to call units of a single quantum of energy) no longer able to combine with one another, and each one some distance from any other. So what we have is entropy maxed out in a sort of "final equilibrium" where no work can any longer possibly be done.

I have no idea what you might mean by "return to". For practical purposes, this equilibrium lasts indefinitely.

The article itself is here, but it's behind a paywall.

[shunyadragon]

In the "other" thread I specifically asked you for evidence, not the view of most physicists. I was the one asking for evidence, not you. You appear to be sidestepping the issue.

No I did not side step the issue, I provided some of what physicists believed is evidence. The view of physicists is the result of the current state of the knowledge of physics and math.

I do not have the math background to deal with the issue, but I have just finished reading, and rereading "A Universe from Nothing by Lawrence M. Krause." Krauss makes an unsupported jump from quantum fluctuations influencing the very early universe to the concept of quantum fluctuations creating matter. He had, or rather he gave, no evidence for any eternal, infinite, zero-state field. If you have such evidence please give it.

You claim to have limited knowledge on the matter, but make the claim above judging a scientist's work. Something is distinctly wrong with this line of thinking.

The question was inspired by the line of what is the first cause by someone from a theist perspective. In the other thread you posted the following . . .

Interesting definition, Shuni, but definitely not evidence. I don't question the validity of quantum physics, or the action of quantum fluctuations. But where is the evidence of an "eternal" zero-state quantum field? That is one existing before our universe and without any time or space. It is pure, or almost pure, speculation.

In contrasting the evidence for a first cause; Would you consider the evidence for God being the first cause as, pure, or almost pure, speculation.?

By the way it is not a matter of existing without any time or space. It is a matter of existing in infinite and eternal time and space.

[phank]

In contrasting the evidence for a first cause; Would you consider the evidence for God being the first cause as, pure, or almost pure, speculation.?

No. Gods are not a valid "cause" of anything. They are, especially in cases like this, a sort of place-holder representing unknown processes and histories. Gods are "speculative" in this sense, in the same way as "beats me, I don't have a clue." Admissions of complete ignorance are not speculations.

By the way it is not a matter of existing without any time or space. I it is a matter of existing in infinite and eternal time and space.

I have difficulty relating these terms to anything. Infinities are mathematical entities, not pragmatic entities, which are approximations. "Eternal" in practice means unimaginably long, so that any proposed intervening history is imaginative fiction beyond some point.

As a practice, science constructs models which become increasingly successful at making predictions as increasing data improve the model (and even chaotic models are possible, insofar as they can help understand how chaos is involved and how it influences predictions). Infinities and eternals move models out of the practical realm. As philosophy, maybe these are useful notions. But you asked for science.

[Jedidiah]

No I did not side step the issue, I provided some of what physicists believed is evidence. The view of physicists is the result of the current state of the knowledge of physics and math.

My apologies. I misunderstood. In another discussion I already acknowledged and accepted the argument of quantum fluctuations producing matter in space. My argument was that there is no evidence to support an eternal zero point field outside space and time.

You claim to have limited knowledge on the matter, but make the claim above judging a scientist's work. Something is distinctly wrong with this line of thinking.

I can read what the man wrote. What in the world is wrong with that. He made a jump without presenting evidence. That is all.

In contrasting the evidence for a first cause; Would you consider the evidence for God being the first cause as, pure, or almost pure, speculation.?

As a matter of science I would have to agree that giving God as first cause is speculation. However, my statement was in comparison with it's opposite. Assuming from a science perspective that there is an eternal universe (universe here including speculated eternal zero point fields).

By the way it is not a matter of existing without any time or space. It is a matter of existing in infinite and eternal time and space.

By the way, it is not a matter, according to Krause, of a zero point field existing in in "infinite and eternal time and space." He posits a zero point field in the complete absence of time and space, hence my criticism.

[shunyadragon]

My apologies. I misunderstood. In another discussion I already acknowledged and accepted the argument of quantum fluctuations producing matter in space. My argument was that there is no evidence to support an eternal zero-point field outside space and time.

The outside space and time would most likely refer to outside the space/ time relationship of our universe, which beyond our universe or any possible universe would be in absolute time. I believe you are misinterpreting the concept of zero-point field as understood by Krauss and other cosmologists sometimes misleadingly described as 'nothing.'

I will have to read back with references and discuss this further.

I can read what the man wrote. What in the world is wrong with that. He made a jump without presenting evidence. That is all.

That s not all. You have expressed an opinion without references to back it up. Can you cite a reference from a cosmologist that supports "He made a jump without presenting evidence."

[Jedidiah]

That s not all. You have expressed an opinion without references to back it up. Can you cite a reference from a cosmologist that supports "He made a jump without presenting evidence."

Let me correct my statement; He made the jump in the book without presenting evidence for it. And he very clearly moved from empty space to "nothing." no space and no matter. Read the book. He may have made an omission, but he did make the jump, and he did not give evidence for it. Read it and you will see what I mean.

[shunyadragon]

No. Gods are not a valid "cause" of anything. They are, especially in cases like this, a sort of place-holder representing unknown processes and histories. Gods are "speculative" in this sense, in the same way as "beats me, I don't have a clue." Admissions of complete ignorance are not speculations.

I warned of appeal to ignorance as an argument in science. Science deals in the falsification and predictability of theories and equations, and in terms of cosmology it involves the possibilities of multiverses and an infinite and eternal physical existence. The collective scientific and math knowledge deals with these possibilities. This admits in the absolute sense 'we do not know.' This is not a weakness, but a value flexible view that allows new knowledge.

I have difficulty relating these terms to anything. Infinities are mathematical entities, not pragmatic entities, which are approximations. "Eternal" in practice means unimaginably long, so that any proposed intervening history is imaginative fiction beyond some point.

No in math and cosmology 'eternal' does not mean unimaginably long. It means 'absolute time,' a time arrow pointing back and forward in time with no starting nor ending point, and any reference point on the line is arbitrary. The line contains no units of time. Those are added for the convenience of human convention.

As a practice, science constructs models which become increasingly successful at making predictions as increasing data improve the model (and even chaotic models are possible, insofar as they can help understand how chaos is involved and how it influences predictions). Infinities and eternals move models out of the practical realm. As philosophy, maybe these are useful notions. But you asked for science.

Infinite space and time is indeed relevant to science. i will cite references to this. or you could read some of Vilenkin's stuff or simply understand that infinity as a concept in math is used in the math of physics and cosmology. Physics and Cosmology would not work without it.

[phank]

I warned of appeal to ignorance as an argument in science. Science deals in the falsification and predictability of theories and equations, and in terms of cosmology it involves the possibilities of multiverses and an infinite and eternal physical existence. The collective scientific and math knowledge deals with these possibilities. This admits in the absolute sense 'we do not know.' This is not a weakness, but a value flexible view that allows new knowledge.

While I'm sure this paragraph means something, it doesn't relate either to the original question, or to my reply to that question.

Taken on its own independent merits, it seems confused. Some of these cosmological speculations emerge from mathematical models even their creators admit lie at best on the border of science, since in many cases no observation can even be suggested to test them. Nobody said this was a weakness, of course. Eventually, some of these models may reach the point where some tests might support them or relegate them to fun mathematical games.

No in math and cosmology 'eternal' does not mean unimaginably long. It means 'absolute time,' a time arrow pointing back and forward in time with no starting nor ending point, and any reference point on the line is arbitrary. The line contains no units of time. Those are added for the convenience of human convention.

In math, yes. In cosmology, no. This is the distinction I was trying to draw.

Infinite space and time is indeed relevant to science. i will cite references to this. or you could read some of Vilenkin's stuff or simply understand that infinity as a concept in math is used in the math of physics and cosmology. Physics and Cosmology would not work without it.

We're not quite communicating. Models are useful in science; math is useful in building models. But science per se rests entirely, unequivocally on a body of actual, physical observations. Models using infinite time and space may help simplify them, and in the process clarify or focus what is to be physically observed. But in practice, science is hostage to the finite, in both space and time.

[magellan004]

But science per se rests entirely, unequivocally on a body of actual, physical observations.

You have refused to acknowledge what is behind this (because it threatens your world view).
An observation is an act; only a person can make an observation.
A 'physical observation' means that someone observed something. Whether you want to say what they saw was physical or not is irrelevant. 'I saw X' is the only form of observation.

You want to pretend that humans are not involved, or that if they wear lab-coats their 'I saw X's are different to someone else's 'I saw X'.

This is frightening stuff for an athiest. I expect you to resist.

Magellan