Against Objectivity

[shunyadragon]

That doesn't solve the problem. Positing an infinite regress flies in the face of "settled science" and is philosophically incoherent. Even the multiverse hypothesis is untenable because we would necessarily have evidence of it if it existed since a multiverse would interact with our own in unpredictable and unexplainable ways.

Infinite regress is a foolish myth concerning our universe in terms of understanding the math of infinities and the potential of our existence being infinite or eternal. In science of the Big Bang, assuming t=0 beginning, infinities do not apply beyond the existence of our universe if finite. Infinite regress sets can only exist within a greater time frame where time exists. A basic primer on the nature of infinities would help you understand the difference between actual infinity sets (infinite regress), and potential infinities. I recommend Infinity and the Mind by Ruddy Rucker.

In mainstream science, scientists do not consider our physical existence limited in space regardless of whether our universe is finite (t=0 beginning) or infinite as the following article indicates in detail, which is possible. The present mainstream view of science is if our universe did not begin at a Big Bang t=0, it is potentially infinite. Very basic fundamental math actual infinities (infinite regress) cannot limit potential infinities,

Potential Infinity vs actual infinity:

Source: www.numbersleuth.org/trends/potential-vs-actual-infinity/

So numbers themselves, taken collectively, are infinite. ... In a sense, a potential infinity is an endless process that at any point along the way is finite. By contrast, in an actual infinity, the infinite is viewed as a completed totality. Aristotle rejected actual infinity, claiming that only potential infinity exists.

© Copyright Original Source

Source: https://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html#jCp

No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning

(Phys.org) —The universe may have existed forever, according to a new model that applies quantum correction terms to complement Einstein's theory of general relativity. The model may also account for dark matter and dark energy, resolving multiple problems at once.
The widely accepted age of the universe, as estimated by general relativity, is 13.8 billion years. In the beginning, everything in existence is thought to have occupied a single infinitely dense point, or singularity. Only after this point began to expand in a "Big Bang" did the universe officially begin.

Although the Big Bang singularity arises directly and unavoidably from the mathematics of general relativity, some scientists see it as problematic because the math can explain only what happened immediately after—not at or before—the singularity.

"The Big Bang singularity is the most serious problem of general relativity because the laws of physics appear to break down there," Ahmed Farag Ali at Benha University and the Zewail City of Science and Technology, both in Egypt, told Phys.org.

Ali and coauthor Saurya Das at the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, Canada, have shown in a paper published in Physics Letters B that the Big Bang singularity can be resolved by their new model in which the universe has no beginning and no end.

© Copyright Original Source

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-qu...verse.html#jCp

[Kbertsche]

This not true for several reasons: (1) ALL the scientists that propose a beginning of our universe 'Big Bang' at t=0, DO NOT propose this is the beginning of our greater cosmos beyond our universe. (2) It is widely held by mainstream scientists that our universe may not have had a beginning.

Shuny, this is not true, and you know it. We have discussed this at length previously.

The current widely held and generally accepted view is that our present universe did indeed have a beginning, about 13.7 billion years ago. There is ample evidence for this. A number of Nobel prizes have been given for the details of it.

Yes, there are fringe theories which deny that our present universe had a beginning, but they are just that: fringe theories which do not represent the mainstream of cosmology.

The spatial extent of our present universe is a different question than its temporal extent (age). Many cosmologists believe that our present universe is spatially infinite, yet they also believe that its age is not past-infinite, i.e., that it did have a beginning. Note that there is, at present, no solid observational or experimental evidence for our universe being spatially infinite; this is just a belief or leaning on behalf of the cosmologists.

Note also that the above applies only to this present universe, and does not extend to multiverse theories. As have no observational or experimental evidence for the existence of any universes outside our own, such theories are purely speculative.

[shunyadragon]

Shuny, this is not true, and you know it. We have discussed this at length previously.

The current widely held and generally accepted view is that our present universe did indeed have a beginning, about 13.7 billion years ago. There is ample evidence for this. A number of Nobel prizes have been given for the details of it.

Yes, there are fringe theories which deny that our present universe had a beginning, but they are just that: fringe theories which do not represent the mainstream of cosmology.

The spatial extent of our present universe is a different question than its temporal extent (age). Many cosmologists believe that our present universe is spatially infinite, yet they also believe that its age is not past-infinite, i.e., that it did have a beginning. Note that there is, at present, no solid observational or experimental evidence for our universe being spatially infinite; this is just a belief or leaning on behalf of the cosmologists.

Your repeated assertions beg an apologist agenda.

Note also that the above applies only to this present universe, and does not extend to multiverse theories. As have no observational or experimental evidence for the existence of any universes outside our own, such theories are purely speculative.

We have discussed this before, and NO the consensus is not necessarily that our universe began at t=0 ~13.7 billion years ago, and the big point is those that believe this DO NOT support the "belief" that this represented the physical beginning of our physical existence. I have offered references that the alternative views ARE NOT fringe science.

[Roy]

But they've been able to set probability bounds, Michael Behe draws the line at new protein-protein interactions in the cell.

No, Behe draws the line at a pre-specified protein-protein interaction. This has no relevance at all to evolution, which doesn't specify in advance what will evolve.