Eternal and Infinite Physical existence?

[phank]

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.

Maybe you should read what I wrote a bit more carefully. There is NO LIMIT to the variation, but there are constraints on the pathways those variations can take. If you are arguing that there is a finite number of genomes possible, you need to do some homework.

But if you wish to believe in eternal and infinite physical existence, hey, knock yourself out. I consider such concepts to be simplifying tools, very useful. But not to be reified, as you seem to be doing.

[shunyadragon]

Maybe you should read what I wrote a bit more carefully. There is NO LIMIT to the variation, but there are constraints on the pathways those variations can take. If you are arguing that there is a finite number of genomes possible, you need to do some homework.

No problem, there are molecular structural limits in any genome variation in the history of life. I may provide references, but this is decidedly off topic. The above statement above is decidedly not clear and contradictory

I looked back into my Bibliography on my computer, and found a good reference to refer you, but there is not an online source i can C&P to cite here. It discusses in great detail different ways evolutionists view the 'constraints' of genetic mutations in genomes. I remember the book pretty well. There are decidedly 'structural limits' on the possible variations of mutations.

The Structure of Evolutionary History by Sephen J. Gould, 2002

But if you wish to believe in eternal and infinite physical existence, hey, knock yourself out. I consider such concepts to be simplifying tools, very useful. But not to be reified, as you seem to be doing.

You have basically failed to bring anything to the table, just a layman's opinion with an odd theological bent.

Enough said, you are definitely out of your league on this one.

[seer]

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.

This is strange Shuny, since you believe that the universe is finite and created by God. If that is true then any assumption that suggests otherwise, scientific or not, has to be wrong.

[Jedidiah]

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

Theories are not concepts or speculations? Interesting. Will theories become concepts if proven false?

Also can you point to how this theory is falsifiable, since it seems to lie outside possible examination?

[seer]

Also can you point to how this theory is falsifiable, since it seems to lie outside possible examination?

That is interesting, how could one even begin to falsify this theory?

[seer]

Where is the evidence? Form the page that was linked:

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

In the most recent study on pre-Big Bang science posted at arXiv.org, a team of researchers from the UK, Canada, and the US, Stephen M. Feeney, et al, have revealed that they have discovered four statistically unlikely circular patterns in the cosmic microwave background (CMB). The researchers think that these marks could be “bruises” that our universe has incurred from being bumped four times by other universes. If they turn out to be correct, it would be the first evidence that universes other than ours do exist.

Why on earth would anybody jump to the conclusion that these circular patterns were the result of the universe being bumped? Might there not be a hundred other reason why these patterns show up? Perhaps unknown? Where is the rational to make this leap?

[Jedidiah]

Shuny, since you seem to want to play a game of authorities, I will drop out. I am an intelligent person and I can read. If I am below your notice, and not worthy of posting, I won't.

[pancreasman]

Shuny, since you seem to want to play a game of authorities, I will drop out. I am an intelligent person and I can read. If I am below your notice, and not worthy of posting, I won't.

Shhh! We're not supposed to talk. Don't mention the war.

[shunyadragon]

Theories are not concepts or speculations? Interesting. Will theories become concepts if proven false?

Theories and hypotheses proven false are theories and hypotheses proven false.

Also can you point to how this theory is falsifiable, since it seems to lie outside possible examination?

Black holes and the basic particles of mater are outside possible examination, and yet demonstrated to exist. Science is no longer in the realms of the Newtonian past except possible for those who chose to do so. This is the age of cosmologists such as Vilenkin and Krauss.

[shunyadragon]

This is strange Shuny, since you believe that the universe is finite and created by God. If that is true then any assumption that suggests otherwise, scientific or not, has to be wrong.

I believe existence can be infinite and created by God. Seer we have been over this ground before. Get a life. This is not the subject of the thread.

[magellan004]

This is strange Shuny, since you believe that the universe is finite and created by God. If that is true then any assumption that suggests otherwise, scientific or not, has to be wrong.

I believe existence can be infinite and created by God. Seer we have been over this ground before. Get a life. This is not the subject of the thread.

I'm guessing that a problem here may stem from the term 'infinite'.
People usually talk about infinite in terms of size - has no edges etc , and eternal in terms of time. Christians believe that God created things with a beginning but no end and we can also conceive of things that had no start nor end. So perhaps Seer and Shunyadragon are talking about different things in relation to God and finite/infinite.

In the opening post Shunyadragon included both eternal and infinite - which was clear.

By the way here is the opening post:

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.

I am assuming Shunyadragon meant The purpose of this thread is to evaluate the 'scientific evidence' for or against the existence of an eternal and infinite physical existence.
'Appeal from Ignorance' is a valid form of argument - like all 'logical fallacies'. The problem is that they are usually unhelpful arguments.

I had asked about evidence from geometry. The reason I asked was because I was curious as to why Shunyadragon wanted to rule out all but specific types of evidence (modern math, physics and cosmology) . If there did exist other evidences for or against the zero-state field, why would they not be considered? But it wasn't a vital issue.

Magellan

[shunyadragon]

That is interesting, how could one even begin to falsify this theory?

Simply, coming into the 20th century it was believed the Newtonian Universe was static, infinite and eternal. There were limited ways to observe the cosmos. All theories and hypotheses fit this evidence from this perspective. as time passed it became increasingly apparent that the universe was not as believed the evidence fit. Progressively the expanding universe fit the evidence, so new theories and hypotheses evolved to explain this because we could see further into space and measure the red shift, there for the big bang became the best model. As theories revealed the possibilities of black holes and singularities, the theory of the singularity being the point of origin of the universe. Since than the singularity no longer fits the present state of evidence, therefore that theory is fading and technically falsified.

Basically as new knowledge is acquired and our abilities to see further into space and time, and acquire knowledge of the quantum world, theories and hypotheses evolve and change.

[shunyadragon]

I'm guessing that a problem here may stem from the term 'infinite'.
People usually talk about infinite in terms of size - has no edges etc , and eternal in terms of time. Christians believe that God created things with a beginning but no end and we can also conceive of things that had no start nor end. So perhaps Seer and Shunyadragon are talking about different things in relation to God and finite/infinite.

In the opening post Shunyadragon included both eternal and infinite - which was clear.

By the way here is the opening post:

I am assuming Shunyadragon meant The purpose of this thread is to evaluate the 'scientific evidence' for or against the existence of an eternal and infinite physical existence.
'Appeal from Ignorance' is a valid form of argument - like all 'logical fallacies'. The problem is that they are usually unhelpful arguments.

I had asked about evidence from geometry. The reason I asked was because I was curious as to why Shunyadragon wanted to rule out all but specific types of evidence (modern math, physics and cosmology) . If there did exist other evidences for or against the zero-state field, why would they not be considered? But it wasn't a vital issue.

Magellan

Not a bad post. The reason why I asked you about evidence concerning 'geometry,' because yes the math and the physics of the nature of the shape of our universe, and the nature of the zero-point field is based in part on geometry, which I may make reference to next.

[shunyadragon]

Where is the evidence? Form the page that was linked:

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



Why on earth would anybody jump to the conclusion that these circular patterns were the result of the universe being bumped? Might there not be a hundred other reason why these patterns show up? Perhaps unknown? Where is the rational to make this leap?

You would probably have to have a lot more education in their specialties to understand their conclusions. I can tell you from what i know that there are more possible conclusions why these regions exist, but most of them would conclude that there is more to our physical existence than just our universe. One of these is these regions are the closest we can possibly observe at present what would be considered non-universe beyond our universe. This relates to what I referred to as the evolution of theories and hypotheses based on new knowledge from seeing further into our distant edges of our universe than before, and measure distant things better and better.

[seer]

You would probably have to have a lot more education in their specialties to understand their conclusions. I can tell you from what i know that there are more possible conclusions why these regions exist, but most of them would conclude that there is more to our physical existence than just our universe. One of these is these regions are the closest we can possibly observe at present what would be considered non-universe beyond our universe. This relates to what I referred to as the evolution of theories and hypotheses based on new knowledge from seeing further into our distant edges of our universe than before, and measure distant things better and better.

Well first, there is no evidence that there is more to our physical universe - unless you include dark matter/energy, which no one understands. Second, the idea that these circular patterns were the result of the universe being bumped by another universe is just made up. Who predicted that this would be the result of such a collision before they observed it?

I believe existence can be infinite and created by God. Seer we have been over this ground before. Get a life. This is not the subject of the thread.

That makes no since at all. If existence is eternal then there would be no need for God to create it.