An Infinite Past?

[seer]

I have seen the quote where Vilenken says their proof does not afford much advantage to a theological view of creation, but I don't want to discuss theology yet.

Yes, he does say that. But that is not unusual, he is a scientist and I believe an atheist, so I would suspect that he is pretty confident that one day they will find a solution. Tass posted the link below, it is interesting and almost sounds like the Christian idea of ex nihilo...

http://www.mukto-mona.com/science/ph...om_nothing.pdf

[robrecht]

Yes, he does say that. But that is not unusual, he is a scientist and I believe an atheist, so I would suspect that he is pretty confident that one day they will find a solution. Tass posted the link below, it is interesting and almost sounds like the Christian idea of ex nihilo...

http://www.mukto-mona.com/science/ph...om_nothing.pdf

I think we should first see if we can all agree on the science (to the extent each of us can understand it) before introducing theological reflection upon the science. That is in fact good theological method.

[seer]

I think we should first see if we can all agree on the science (to the extent each of us can understand it) before introducing theological reflection upon the science. That is in fact good theological method.

But we are not going to agree. That is the point, we never will.

[Leonhard]

But we are not going to agree. That is the point, we never will.

This is somewhat fatalistic.

[seer]

This is somewhat fatalistic.

We all have our biases - even scientists.

[robrecht]

But we are not going to agree. That is the point, we never will.

Maybe not, but that does not mean that the attempt to agree on the science is not without merit, and some of us certainly will agree on the science without sharing the same faith.

[seer]

Maybe not, but that does not mean that the attempt to agree on the science is not without merit, and some of us certainly will agree on the science without sharing the same faith.

Hope springs eternal...

[shunyadragon]

Sure, here:http://www.scribd.com/doc/77980709/W...Creation-Event

Please cite a complete first person reference of Vilenkin concerning this issue. On the surface this source refers to the talk by Vilenkin given below. Please refer specifically where Vilenkin refers to the multiverse must have a beginning

And here:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXCQelhKJ7A

This reference is a good talk by Vilenkin, but it deals ONLY with the beginning of our universe or any possible universe only, and not the multiverse. Yes, the best argument is the most accepted in physics and cosmology that all possible universes have a beginning, but this beginning does not apply to the multiverse, this is presently unknown.

Another misrepresentation of Vilenkin. I doubt seriously if you even understood his lecture.

Please cite specifically where Vilenkin states that the multiverse must have a beginning.

In this video Vilenkin discusses the multiverse:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHEp855NS6c

[seer]

Please cite a complete first person reference of Vilenkin concerning this issue. On the surface this source refers to the talk by Vilenkin given below. Please refer specifically where Vilenkin refers to the multiverse must have a beginning.

You are such a deceiver Shuny. The eternal inflation theory is the multiverse theory. And 4 minutes in, on, he speaks of the bubble universes (the smaller universes that are created).

And again:http://www.scribd.com/doc/77980709/W...Creation-Event

However, as cosmologist Alexander Vilenkinof Tufts University in Boston explained last week, that hope has been gradually fading and may now be dead. He showed that all these theories still demand a beginning...

Eternal inflation is essentially an expansion of Guth's idea, and says that the universe grows at this breakneck pace forever, by constantly giving birth to smaller "bubble" universes within an ever-expanding multiverse, each of which goes through its own initial period of inflation. Crucially, some versions of eternal inflation applied to time as well as space, with the bubbles forming both backwards and forwards in time (see diagram).But in 2003, a team including Vilenkin and Guth considered what eternal inflation would mean for the Hubble constant, which describes mathematically the expansion of the universe. They found that the equations didn't work (Physical Review Letters, DOI: 10.1103/physrevlett.90.151301).

"You can't construct a space-time with this property," says Vilenkin. It turns out that the constant has a lower limit that prevents inflation in both time directions. "It can't possibly be eternal in the past," says Vilenkin."There must be some kind of boundary."

[shunyadragon]

You are such a deceiver Shuny. The eternal inflation theory is the multiverse theory. And 4 minutes in, on, he speaks of the bubble universes (the smaller universes that are created).

And again:http://www.scribd.com/doc/77980709/W...Creation-Event

The whole subject of the references you referred only to universes and not the multiverse. Your fibbing seer. Still waiting . . .

[Tassman]

Tass, it was not misleading at all. There is zero evidence for an infinite past for matter and energy. There is no support for that.

It was misleading because of your attempt to equate “zero evidence” with “as yet unverified evidence.” There's a difference. Cosmologists don’t pull hypotheses out of thin air for no reason, but this is what you are implying. It seems your primary concern is to reduce the argument to a simplistic: "the universe must have a beginning” - presumably to accommodate your creator deity.

And even with inflation theory, as Vilenkin made clear, the multiverse needs a beginning.

You misunderstand Vilenkin’s argument. “Inflation” only refers to the individual universes within the multiverse, NOT to the multiverse itself - i.e. the multiverse itself is not inflationary, just its constituent parts. Thus, what “needs a beginning" are each of the “infinity of pocket universes” (Vilenkin’s term), not the multiverse from which they emerge. The multiverse is posited as being eternal and therefore doesn't have a beginning.

[seer]

The whole subject of the references you referred only to universes and not the multiverse. Your fibbing seer. Still waiting . . .

Shuny, again the eternal inflation theory is the multiverse - that is made perfectly clear in the New Scientist article. I can't help if your bias and poor reasoning skills prevent you from understanding that.

Eternal inflation is essentially an expansion of Guth's idea, and says that the universe grows at this breakneck pace forever, by constantly giving birth to smaller "bubble" universes within an ever-expanding multiverse, each of which goes through its own initial period of inflation. Crucially, some versions of eternal inflation applied to time as well as space, with the bubbles forming both backwards and forwards in time (see diagram).But in 2003, a team including Vilenkin and Guth considered what eternal inflation would mean for the Hubble constant, which describes mathematically the expansion of the universe. They found that the equations didn't work (Physical Review Letters, DOI: 10.1103/physrevlett.90.151301).

"You can't construct a space-time with this property," says Vilenkin. It turns out that the constant has a lower limit that prevents inflation in both time directions. "It can't possibly be eternal in the past," says Vilenkin."There must be some kind of boundary."

Inflation can not happen eternally in both directions, bubbles forming universes can not be happening eternally into the past.

[shunyadragon]

Shuny, again the eternal inflation theory is the multiverse - that is made perfectly clear in the New Scientist article. I can't help if your bias and poor reasoning skills prevent you from understanding that.

Inflation can not happen eternally in both directions, bubbles forming universes can not be happening eternally into the past.

Tassman and JimL in previous posts made it clear how you are misrepresenting Vilenkin and others to justify your agenda. Again, all these references including the New Scientist article refer to beginnings and inflation of universes and not the multiverse itself. Is English a problem for you here?

Still waiting . . .

[seer]

It was misleading because of your attempt to equate “zero evidence” with “as yet unverified evidence.” There's a difference. Cosmologists don’t pull hypotheses out of thin air for no reason, but this is what you are implying. It seems your primary concern is to reduce the argument to a simplistic: "the universe must have a beginning” - presumably to accommodate your creator deity.

Tass, then present it, where is any concrete evidence for an eternal physical past? There is zero. Sure, like your link showed, there are ideas, but even there, there are contradictory theories with no actual evidence that gets us to an eternal past.

You misunderstand Vilenkin’s argument. “Inflation” only refers to the individual universes within the multiverse, NOT to the multiverse itself - i.e. the multiverse itself is not inflationary, just its constituent parts. Thus, what “needs a beginning" are each of the “infinity of pocket universes” (Vilenkin’s term), not the multiverse from which they emerge. The multiverse is posited as being eternal and therefore doesn't have a beginning.

That is absolutely false Tass. The eternal inflation theory is a multiverse theory. An ever expanding cosmos that bubbles up smaller universes like ours. Though inflation can be eternal into the future it "can not" be eternal into the past. The universe forming process (bubbles) is not past eternal. Vilenkin makes that perfectly clear, and the only reason you reject it is because you are completely bias.

[seer]

Tassman and JimL in previous posts made it clear how you are misrepresenting Vilenkin and others to justify your agenda. Again, all these references including the New Scientist article refer to beginnings and inflation of universes and not the multiverse itself. Is English a problem for you here?

Still waiting . . .

Then show me Shuny, anywhere, where Vilenkin says that the multiverse is past eternal. I gave you my reference with his you tube video and the New Scientist article, now show us all where he says that multiverse is past eternal.

And BTW in an exchange between Vilenkin and Bill Craig, Vilenkin said the following.

I think you represented what I wrote about the BGV theorem in my papers and to you personally very accurately. This is not to say that you represented my views as to what this implies regarding the existence of God. Which is OK, since I have no special expertise to issue such judgements. Whatever it's worth, my view is that the BGV theorem does not say anything about the existence of God one way or the other. In particular, the beginning of the universe could be a natural event, described by quantum cosmology.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/hones...#ixzz2zo2np8Uv