Eternal and Infinite Physical existence?

[shunyadragon]

I'm not seeing any disagreement here, personally. Yes, cosmology makes use of MODELS which include infinities. And such models might be very useful, and guide observation. Saying "it is natural to consider that the cosmos might be infinite" is to invoke a MODEL. It's equally valid to say that conceptually there is no limit to the variations of life evolution can produce. Again, a useful model. But observation is limited to what IS, not what it might be natural to consider. What IS falls within the scope of observation. Which is finite. I have no problems with including infinities into models - often, this simplifies models by eliminating troublesome boundary conditions. But these are nonetheless concepts, not observations.

Ahhhh . . . but there is a limit to the variations of life evolution can produce. What fails within the scope of observations has never determined the scope of theories and hypothesis in science since science has been science. No they are not just concepts, nor are the speculations. I believe they are as Vilenkin and other cosmologists describe.

[Jedidiah]

If "they are not just concepts," and they are not speculations, what are they?

[phank]

No they are not just concepts, nor are the speculations. I believe they are as Vilenkin and other cosmologists describe.

And these people discuss conceptual models. Concepts. Speculations. According to the quotes you provided, anyway. "It is natural to consider" is most emphatically qualitatively distinct from "this is observed". Heck, it seems "natural to consider" GODS, for pity's sake!

Maybe I see a distinction between considering something in my imagination, and observing something physically, that you don't "consider" to exist at all. And we are actually observing this!

[Jedidiah]

Why do we need to make a choice at all? I don't have enough data to have a firm opinion.

Not to choose it to choose.

[pancreasman]

Not to choose it to choose.

What? That sounds very zen. I think not to choose is not to choose. This isn't the ONLY area where one can develop their metaphysics. I think there a lot more interesting and convincing philosophical avenues to explore when contemplating theism.

Could you expand on your statement? Why is not choosing on issue in which I don't have anything like enough data a form of choosing something? What did I choose?

[magellan004]

The agnostic's problem - knowing what everyone else doesn't know:

The fact of the existence of the universe does not strongly imply any particular manner of its origin.

Why do we need to make a choice at all? I don't have enough data to have a firm opinion.

Since your opinion is not firm you will be open to the obvious-
The universe is evidence of God.

Magellan

[shunyadragon]

If "they are not just concepts," and they are not speculations, what are they?

Falsifiable theories and hypothesis that demonstrate predictability. The foundation of science.

[shunyadragon]

And these people discuss conceptual models. Concepts. Speculations. According to the quotes you provided, anyway. "It is natural to consider" is most emphatically qualitatively distinct from "this is observed". Heck, it seems "natural to consider" GODS, for pity's sake!

For pity's sake it is absolutely not natural in science to consider the existence of God(s). Where in the Hades are coming from!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You need to back up and assess things. your coming on like a layman theist with a serious agenda. Please, let's go to science on this and how science works. I cite physicists and cosmologists, and foundation principles of scientific methods, and even the minority view like George, who is a strong theist. I most likely have stronger math and science background than you and i do not rely on my own opinion on these matters. It remains a fact that so far none of the detractors, including you have cited the authorities and actually deal with the science in this debate. I hear a lot of layman's opinions. That is unfortunate

Maybe I see a distinction between considering something in my imagination, and observing something physically, that you don't "consider" to exist at all. And we are actually observing this!

No, they are not actually observing this. This is not Newtonian physics. No one has actually observed the basic particles of matter either.

[shunyadragon]

The agnostic's problem - knowing what everyone else doesn't know:



Since your opinion is not firm you will be open to the obvious-
The universe is evidence of God.

Magellan

Last warning, Mags. Stay on topic or do not post. One more post like this and you are banned from the thread!

You may explain your reference to geometry in a previous post that would help.

[shunyadragon]

What? That sounds very zen. I think not to choose is not to choose. This isn't the ONLY area where one can develop their metaphysics. I think there a lot more interesting and convincing philosophical avenues to explore when contemplating theism.

Could you expand on your statement? Why is not choosing on issue in which I don't have anything like enough data a form of choosing something? What did I choose?

This is sliding off topic a bit, and . . .

Please do not respond to clown shoes or others posts if they are not on topic.

[shunyadragon]

As to mulitiverses, it is interesting that there appears to be some observations which would seem to increase the likelihood of the existence of multiple universes.

http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-12-...universes.html

Not conclusive by any means but the astrophysics is still very young.

I thought I would respond to this, because you actually cited something on topic. Yes, it is not conclusive, and yes this is demonstrating possibilities as Vilenkin states, but if multiverses exist, they exist in something like a zero-state field from which universe arise form and eventually, but not necessarily suffer a 'cold death.' If the zero-state field exists it is most likely infinite.

[shunyadragon]

And these people discuss conceptual models. Concepts. Speculations. According to the quotes you provided, anyway. "It is natural to consider" is most emphatically qualitatively distinct from "this is observed". Heck, it seems "natural to consider" GODS, for pity's sake!

Maybe I see a distinction between considering something in my imagination, and observing something physically, that you don't "consider" to exist at all. And we are actually observing this!

I thought I would give another important example of how theories and hypothesis predict things not observed in cosmology. Years before black holes were confirmed to exist, still not observed by the way, a fairly detailed description of them and their existence was described by physicists.

[phank]

For pity's sake it is absolutely not natural in science to consider the existence of God(s). Where in the Hades are coming from!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

From a reading of the beliefs of nearly every human culture worldwide since the advent of written history? Does that count? Granted it's not science. Speculation is speculation. Saying that science-related speculation is some sort of different category is, uh, wrong.

You need to back up and assess things. your coming on like a layman theist with a serious agenda. Please, let's go to science on this and how science works. I cite physicists and cosmologists, and foundation principles of scientific methods, and even the minority view like George, who is a strong theist. I most likely have stronger math and science background than you and i do not rely on my own opinion on these matters. It remains a fact that so far none of the detractors, including you have cited the authorities and actually deal with the science in this debate. I hear a lot of layman's opinions. That is unfortunate

You go to your church and I'll go to mine, I guess.

Ahhhh . . . but there is a limit to the variations of life evolution can produce.

This is certainly news to biologists. Evolution is certainly constrained by both the limitations of physics and chemistry, and by precedent and contingency. But this doesn't mean there is a finite number of possible variations. It means that the number of variations that WILL be produced is finite, but not the number that CAN be produced. And this is what I mean about infinities informing theory usefully, but nonetheless being simplifying tools to assist model building.

[shunyadragon]

From a reading of the beliefs of nearly every human culture worldwide since the advent of written history? Does that count?

No, it has nothing to do with the scientific approach to the cosmos, besides being not accurate and off topic. See the following.

Granted it's not science. Speculation is speculation. Saying that science-related speculation is some sort of different category is, uh, wrong.

Your expressing a layman's view with out references. The scientific methods of falsification and demonstrating predictive value of theories and hypothesis is not speculation.



Air Ball!!!!!!

No, you cannot compare belief in God(s) with science. Actually no, not all cultures have believed in theistic God(s) as the Middle Eastern traditions have. The Chinese Confucian Culture has been basically secular and indifferent to the existence of God(s) for more than ~2500 years at least.

You go to your church and I'll go to mine, I guess.

Well, am I to assume, your choice of faith includes a church? It appears it does since you are focusing on an off topic theist approach.

This is certainly news to biologists. Evolution is certainly constrained by both the limitations of physics and chemistry, and by precedent and contingency. But this doesn't mean there is a finite number of possible variations. It means that the number of variations that WILL be produced is finite, but not the number that CAN be produced. And this is what I mean about infinities informing theory usefully, but nonetheless being simplifying tools to assist model building.

False, I am a geologist with a BS in Agriculture, MS in Geology, and a good background in Biology, Genetics and Evolution. There is a distinct limit to the possibilities concerning possible mutations and variations based on the limits of the make up of the DNA and RNA in the history of life. In fact the variations and mutations are not truly random. No, biologists would not be surprised at this.

This is more than a bit off topic. You need to bring something to the table other than a layman's opinion.

[phank]

I thought I would give another important example of how theories and hypothesis predict things not observed in cosmology. Years before black holes were confirmed to exist, still not observed by the way, a fairly detailed description of them and their existence was described by physicists.

Yes, this is a good example. Indeed, it applies accross every scientific discipline, as far as I'm aware. We make observations. From those, we build tentative models in at attempt to isolate what's relevant. Models imply predictions, which are tested and those not rejected extend and reinforce the models. So predictive models and guided observation work as a team. I'd say science requires both.

If the zero-state field exists it is most likely infinite.

But it's dangerous to push models too far. Beyond some disconnection with observation, they become isolated. Different "string theories" have different numbers of dimensions nobody can detect. Or branes that can't be detected. So your statement risk being comparable to "if leprechauns exist, they most likely have red hair."