Eternal and Infinite Physical existence?

[shunyadragon]

Shuny, you are getting off topic. So let's focus.

Not off topic at all, Your off topic. Read the openning post. The topic concerns mutiverses and the greater cosmos, and not the GRD proposal for the beginning of universes. Your references only deal with the GRD theory which only deals with the theory of the beginning of all possible universes by inflation.

Yes, let's focus. You are being blatantly dishonest, unethical, misusing and misrepresenting Vilenkin's work and research!!!!!

1. This universe had a beginning.

Yes, The GRD theory only refers to the theory that all possible universes including ours begins with inflation. It does not represent any reference to any absolute beginning whatsoever.

2. An infinite number of past universes leading to this one does not work.

It is clearly acknowledged that the theory of cyclic universes, or an infinite number of past universes in the history of our universe is not considered a viable theory at present.

Vilenkin's research on the possibility of multiverses, and an infinite cosmos does not remotely involve this theory of cyclic universe.

3. According to the article, and Vilenkin's own quote the eternal inflation model also can not work. And I quote:





Shuny remember this talk was given this year, it quotes Vilenkin from THIS YEAR. So "eternal inflation" can not be eternal into the past according to Vilenkin. An infinite number of past universes can not be the answer for the reasons stated. And neither can the static state. So where is the evidence for "Eternal and Infinite Physical existence?"

Please show it to us, what is the NAME of this theory? Remember he said ALL THESE THEORIES demand a beginning. Which theory DOESN'T demand a beginning?

No problem Vilenkin's research, as well as other contemporary cosmologists, do not rely on this theory to explain the theories of multiverse and a infinite and eternal cosmos.

Yes, all possible universes, including ours, are considered to have a beginning based on the GRD theory. There is absolutely nothing todo with Vilenkin's research and proposals for a multiverse existence. The articles you cite only deal with the GRD theory comcerning the beginning of all possible universes with inflation, not a singularity.

[seer]

Yes, The GRD theory only refers to the theory that all possible universes including ours begins with inflation. It does not represent any reference to any absolute beginning whatsoever.

It is clearly acknowledged that the theory of cyclic universes, or an infinite number of past universes in the history of our universe is not considered a viable theory at present.

Vilenkin's research on the possibility of multiverses, and an infinite cosmos does not remotely involve this theory of cyclic universe.

No problem Vilenkin's research, as well as other contemporary cosmologists, do not rely on this theory to explain the theories of multiverse and a infinite and eternal cosmos.

Yes, all possible universes, including ours, are considered to have a beginning based on the GRD theory. There is absolutely nothing todo with Vilenkin's research and proposals for a multiverse existence. The articles you cite only deal with the GRD theory comcerning the beginning of all possible universes with inflation, not a singularity.

Ok, so where is the evidence for a "Eternal and Infinite Physical existence?" By what observation do we know this? What is the name of the theory?

[shunyadragon]

Ok, so where is the evidence for a "Eternal and Infinite Physical existence?" By what observation do we know this? What is the name of the theory?

First, we have to clear away the unethical, dishonest, misrepresentation trash presented so far by you and used by Craig and other traditional theist apologists. I have addressed this in a number of other threads, and keeps raising up out of the manure pits of dishonest use of others works.

Let's hose the decks and start over.

We have discussed many aspects of the basis of modern theories and hypotheses concerning the nature of the greater cosmos over and over again. You seem to hung up on the need for Newtonian direct 'observations' to confirm these theories and hypotheses. I have demonstrated that there are no direct 'observations' that confirm the existence of black holes, basic particles of matter, the big bang, any possible singularity for the beginning of the universe, and dark matter and energy (which in reality may not exist). All these attributes of our physical existence are determined or rejected by the falsification and demonstrated predictability of theories and hypotheses, and not by direct 'observations.'

Your continued combative approach to science, math, physics and cosmology without a competent background in these fields makes a dialogue with you difficult.

Phank described this problem accurately in a previous post . . .

But perhaps it does not. My point is that if you presume a religious answer, you are going to find one. Granted, the nice thing about the religious answers is that no evidence is really required at all. And if there is any, a religious orientation will MAKE that evidence correspond to religious preconvictions whether it actually does or not.

The danger of presuming a religious answer is that once presumed, a religious answer is basically impossible to dislodge. From that point forward, anything inconsistent with the religious answer simply is not evidence. I prefer reading about efforts to puzzle this stuff together in search of a best-fit explanation, and seeing that explanation change as new evidence leads to a better fit with some different model. The religious process of fitting evidence to Truth rather than fitting conclusions to evidence has a frankly terrible track record of modeling reality. But a GREAT track record at satisfying people that ignorance is knowledge.

[shunyadragon]

I thought I would repost the openning thread to try and bring things back to focus.


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 universes.

One note 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 even presented a reference to one cosmologist who rejects this view of the nature of the greater cosmos, and no one followed up on it.

You also presented a Trojan Horse of the claims of what you judged as bad direct evidence for the circles in the distant cosmos as direct evidence of 'bumps' with other universes. I wisely never claimed this as specific direct evidence, and expressed a reservation of judgment as to what these circles represent. I only expressed that the this evidence represented part of the greater picture of the nature of the cosmos. When more research and modeling is done in the future I may be willing to comment more. You seem to be more than willing to make final judgments as to the nature of these models and the research as who is correct, without any competent background on the subject matter.

[magellan004]

First, we have to clear away the unethical, dishonest, misrepresentation trash presented so far by you and used by Craig and other traditional theist apologists. I have addressed this in a number of other threads, and keeps raising up out of the manure pits of dishonest use of others works.

Let's hose the decks and start over.

We have discussed many aspects of the basis of modern theories and hypotheses concerning the nature of the greater cosmos over and over again. You seem to hung up on the need for Newtonian direct 'observations' to confirm these theories and hypotheses. I have demonstrated that there are no direct 'observations' that confirm the existence of black holes, basic particles of matter, the big bang, any possible singularity for the beginning of the universe, and dark matter and energy (which in reality may not exist). All these attributes of our physical existence are determined or rejected by the falsification and demonstrated predictability of theories and hypotheses, and not by direct 'observations.'

Your continued combative approach to science, math, physics and cosmology without a competent background in these fields makes a dialogue with you difficult.

Phank described this problem accurately in a previous post . . .

But perhaps it does not. My point is that if you presume a religious answer, you are going to find one. Granted, the nice thing about the religious answers is that no evidence is really required at all. And if there is any, a religious orientation will MAKE that evidence correspond to religious preconvictions whether it actually does or not.

Your post made no sense whatever. Hosing down the decks and starting over is apparently 'Let's insult and wipe off the other person's case.'

The problem stems from your opening post. You call for only certain evidence - Scientific evidence which you then define as ' arguments form the perspective of modern math, physics and cosmology.' So you are not interested in evidence at all. You are interested in some sort of Pop-Science argument - which you alone have a grasp of.

Seer is asking a very straight forward question:

You (Shunydragon /and some other cosmologists) are positing an existence beyond our universe. What is the evidence for saying that?

Your reply has been consistent :

1. You (Seer ) can only know the answer if you know as much as I know about cosmology and
2. You can't know about other universes because you are a theist.

I am surprised you got sucked in by Phank's anti-religious rant. Phank pretends that he is open to 'new evidence' while ruling out certain evidence - anything of a religious nature.
At least Phank is open about his bias. As I have said before - you hide behind a weird double standard - 'My open minded theism is superior to all other theism' .

But it's an enjoyable thread.

Magellan

[shunyadragon]

Your post made no sense whatever. Hosing down the decks and starting over is apparently 'Let's insult and wipe off the other person's case.'

The problem stems from your opening post. You call for only certain evidence - Scientific evidence which you then define as ' arguments form the perspective of modern math, physics and cosmology.' So you are not interested in evidence at all. You are interested in some sort of Pop-Science argument - which you alone have a grasp of.

Seer is asking a very straight forward question:

You (Shunydragon /and some other cosmologists) are positing an existence beyond our universe. What is the evidence for saying that?

Your reply has been consistent :

1. You (Seer ) can only know the answer if you know as much as I know about cosmology and
2. You can't know about other universes because you are a theist.

I am surprised you got sucked in by Phank's anti-religious rant. Phank pretends that he is open to 'new evidence' while ruling out certain evidence - anything of a religious nature.
At least Phank is open about his bias. As I have said before - you hide behind a weird double standard - 'My open minded theism is superior to all other theism' .

But it's an enjoyable thread.

Magellan

The problem is seer's argument involving Vilenkin's GRD theory represented an unethical, dishonest, misrepresentation of Vilenkin's research and works. This needs to be cleared from the decks.

Yes this thread represents a scientific and math evidence for the topic. Other threads out side Natural Science may clearly define the evidence differently, but this section of the Forum is NATURAL SCIENCE. and not including other arguments, which may be presented in other sections,

You mentioned something about the evidence based on 'geometry.' This possibly could be a subject for this thread, but you have failed to present a coherent argument for this view. I am willing to consider anything coherent involving math and Natural Science.

Yes this thread represents a scientific and math evidence for the topic. Other threads out side Natural Science may clearly define the evidence differently, but this section of the Forum is NATURAL SCIENCE. and not including other arguments, which may be presented in other sections of this forum. Natural Science evidence defines evidence as the objective verifiable evidence that is the subject of scientific methods that may be applied to the Natural physical world. There are other forms of evidence, such as anecdotal, and legal evidence of varying types, but these and other types of claims of evidence do not apply in the Natural Science section of the Forum,

[seer]

We have discussed many aspects of the basis of modern theories and hypotheses concerning the nature of the greater cosmos over and over again. You seem to hung up on the need for Newtonian direct 'observations' to confirm these theories and hypotheses. I have demonstrated that there are no direct 'observations' that confirm the existence of black holes, basic particles of matter, the big bang, any possible singularity for the beginning of the universe, and dark matter and energy (which in reality may not exist). All these attributes of our physical existence are determined or rejected by the falsification and demonstrated predictability of theories and hypotheses, and not by direct 'observations.'

Ok, so you agree that there is no observational evidence for an "Eternal and Infinite Physical existence?" And theories and hypotheses are fine, but if you can not show that they correspond to reality then they will end up being useless. So let's start here - what present day theory points an "Eternal and Infinite Physical existence." What is the name of that theory, can you provide a link?

And I will remind you that I posted a link to an interview with George Ellis, who says that no such workable theory exists. But, I'll wait to hear from you.

[seer]

Ok, so you agree that there is no observational evidence for an "Eternal and Infinite Physical existence?" And theories and hypotheses are fine, but if you can not show that they correspond to reality then they will end up being useless. So let's start here - what present day theory points an "Eternal and Infinite Physical existence." What is the name of that theory, can you provide a link?

And I will remind you that I posted a link to an interview with George Ellis, who says that no such workable theory exists. But, I'll wait to hear from you.

For anyone who is interested here is Alan Guth telling us that the inflation theory can not work backwad to eternity past.That all universes, must be traced to a beginning.

http://closertotruth.com/video-profi...Alan-Guth-/856

[pancreasman]

Ok, so you agree that there is no observational evidence for an "Eternal and Infinite Physical existence?" And theories and hypotheses are fine, but if you can not show that they correspond to reality then they will end up being useless. So let's start here - what present day theory points an "Eternal and Infinite Physical existence." What is the name of that theory, can you provide a link?

And I will remind you that I posted a link to an interview with George Ellis, who says that no such workable theory exists. But, I'll wait to hear from you.

It's also worth noting in passing there is no observational evidence for a supernatural being creating the universe. Thus both are speculations looking more for philosophical justifications than anything else. We don't really know what inertia is in the here and now. To presume we have some information about the time before time is hubris to say the least.

[magellan004]

It's also worth noting in passing there is no observational evidence for a supernatural being creating the universe. Thus both are speculations looking more for philosophical justifications than anything else. We don't really know what inertia is in the here and now. To presume we have some information about the time before time is hubris to say the least.

The same problem exists for a mythical common ancestor to all life on Earth.
And that is true. Real science - Chemistry and Physics - are only concerned with setting up a new experiment. This stuff about fossils and looking back cannot be observational science.
Galileo didn't set about to teach the history of falling balls. He made a prediction about something that would happen in the future and then conducted a test.

Just don't pretend that evolution is any different to any other explanation of the past.

Magellan

[robrecht]

For anyone who is interested here is Alan Guth telling us that the inflation theory can not work backwad to eternity past.That all universes, must be traced to a beginning.

http://closertotruth.com/video-profi...Alan-Guth-/856

Don't be too surprised if Guth also agrees with Vilenkin when he is speaking of the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem. It is an interesting video, 'though, as he does seem to be saying that inflation, which produces the various 'pocket universes', and not just our universe, did probably have some kind of beginning. Thank you.

[seer]

Don't be too surprised if Guth also agrees with Vilenkin when he is speaking of the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem. It is an interesting video, 'though, as he does seem to be saying that inflation, which produces the various 'pocket universes', and not just our universe, did probably have some kind of beginning. Thank you.

Well more than a probably - inflation theory requires a absolute beginning, if the math is to work out.

[robrecht]

Well more than a probably - inflation theory requires a absolute beginning, if the math is to work out.

I said probably because of Guth's own qualifters, eg, 'this process seems to predict' and 'we do not think that it is eternal into the past' and 'making assumptions that seem reasonable, we've been able to quote prove mathematically' and 'we don't really have a solid theory of how inflation began; the ultimate theory of the origin of the universe is still very much up for grabs'. So is your math more certain than Guth's?

[seer]

I said probably because of Guth's own qualifters, eg, 'this process seems to predict' and 'we do not think that it is eternal into the past' and 'making assumptions that seem reasonable, we've been able to quote prove mathematically' and 'we don't really have a solid theory of how inflation began; the ultimate theory of the origin of the universe is still very much up for grabs'. So is your math more certain than Guth's?

That is why I said "if the math is to work out." Notice the "if?" Inflation theory requires pretty specific math to be credible, and that math requires a beginning. Of course inflation theory may not correct at all.

[shunyadragon]

That is why I said "if the math is to work out." Notice the "if?" Inflation theory requires pretty specific math to be credible, and that math requires a beginning. Of course inflation theory may not correct at all.

I believe I also posted a reference to George, and he represents a strong biased Christian perspective on the cosmos. I already acknowledged his minority position.