The Universe Shouldn't Exist...

[seer]

Again, again, again and again no, because you are selectively citing Vilenkin to justify your agenda. This article refers only to the beginning of our universe, and not whether the greater (multiverse) cosmos is past eternal. Vilenkin proposed that it is possible that the multiverse had a beginning, but again our multiverse may be one of an infinite number of multiverses. but than again you do not believe there is evidence or beginning of our universe and all possible universes in a multiverse from Quantum nothing that Vilenkin, Guth, Krauss, Hawking and others support.

Why are you fudging the truth again Shuny? It is the multiverse that needs a beginning. In his inflation theory the multiverse can not be past eternal.

For the eternal inflation model, what we can show mathematically is that there is no end to this process. Some people thought maybe you could avoid a beginning, too. But our 2003 theorem shows that [avoiding a beginning] is impossible for this scenario. Although inflation may be eternal into the future, it cannot be extended indefinitely to the past. So that was that.
http://now.tufts.edu/articles/beginning-was-beginning

Then there is the idea of an emergent universe which exists as a kind of seed for eternity and then suddenly expands.

So these modern cosmologies suggest that the observational evidence of an expanding universe is consistent with a cosmos with no beginning or end. That may be set to change.

Today, Audrey Mithani and Alexander Vilenkin at Tufts University in Massachusetts say that these models are mathematically incompatible with an eternal past. Indeed, their analysis suggests that these three models of the universe must have had a beginning too.

Their argument focuses on the mathematical properties of eternity–a universe with no beginning and no end. Such a universe must contain trajectories that stretch infinitely into the past.

However, Mithani and Vilenkin point to a proof dating from 2003 that these kind of past trajectories cannot be infinite if they are part of a universe that expands in a specific way.

They go on to show that cyclical universes and universes of eternal inflation both expand in this way. So they cannot be eternal in the past and must therefore have had a beginning. “Although inflation may be eternal in the future, it cannot be extended indefinitely to the past,” they say. https://www.technologyreview.com/s/4...d-a-beginning/

Your speculating in the realm of the scieniists Quantum Mechanics, Cosmology, and Physics you do not believe there is any evidence for, and Sparko and you have no qualifications to make the judgments you make based on your theist agenda..

But Shuny you speculate and you too have no qualifications, and you also have a religious agenda since your religion demands that matter and energy are past eternal. Hypocrite

[Sparko]

Arguing with Shunya about science is like arguing with your dog about politics.

[seer]

Arguing with Shunya about science is like arguing with your dog about politics.

On this subject Shuny has a clear religious agenda, his religion teaches that matter and energy are co-eternal with his god...

[Sparko]

On this subject Shuny has a clear religious agenda, his religion teaches that matter and energy are co-eternal with his god...

Like I said in another thread: What if the "multiverse" is Heaven and God is a being living there who created this universe from "nothing?" can shunya or anyone prove differently?

[rogue06]

Arguing with Shunya about science is like arguing with your dog about politics.

If he stays within the areas of his training (primarily geology) he is quite competent, but the moment he leaves them...

[shunyadragon]

Just come out and admit that they don't know, that they are guessing and may never know since at this point we can't get any evidence outside of the universe. Or of any other universe. It's OK to admit science can't answer everything at this time.

I have respect for science and I don't begrudge scientists even wondering what created the universe or if there are other universes, but don't arrogantly come off as if what they are "theorizing" about is fact, or that they even have actual evidence when they don't.

"we don't know" is a perfectly good scientific answer to me.

This does not reflect the view of the physicists and cosmologists, nor I concerning the origins of our universe, nor the existence of the multiverse. Your conflating layman's terminology with science and demonstrating your ignorance and incompetence in the science involved. Science does not deal with what they 'know,' and this over the top misrepresentation of science based on your religious agenda. Science deals with the falsification of theories and hypothesis as a progressive process as more knowledge becomes available.

You are also atrociously misrepresenting the use of what is 'fact.' Neither the scientist nor I consider the theories and hypothesis concerning the origins of the universe, and the possible existing of multiverses as 'facts.'

[shunyadragon]

If he stays within the areas of his training (primarily geology) he is quite competent, but the moment he leaves them...

Not a coherent response, and failed to address the issues involved, and only trolling with an agenda, You are unnecessarily justifying the misuse of science by seer and sparko. I cite the scientists involved without seer's selective references, and NOT rely on my expert knowledge, which in math and physics may be better than you assert without any knowledge of my background.

[Sparko]

This does not reflect the view of the physicists and cosmologists, nor I concerning the origins of our universe, nor the existence of the multiverse. Your conflating layman's terminology with science and demonstrating your ignorance and incompetence in the science involved. Science does not deal with what they 'know,' and this over the top misrepresentation of science based on your religious agenda. Science deals with the falsification of theories and hypothesis as a progressive process as more knowledge becomes available.

You are also atrociously misrepresenting the use of what is 'fact.' Neither the scientist nor I consider the theories and hypothesis concerning the origins of the universe, and the possible existing of multiverses as 'facts.'

Not a coherent response, and failed to address the issues involved, and only trolling with an agenda.

[One Bad Pig]

Not a coherent response, and failed to address the issues involved, and only trolling with an agenda.

You're a cruel pirate.

[seer]

You're a cruel pirate.

Sometimes you have to be cruel to be kind...

[shunyadragon]

Not a coherent response, and failed to address the issues involved, and only trolling with an agenda.

Please respond . . .

This does not reflect the view of the physicists and cosmologists, nor I concerning the origins of our universe, nor the existence of the multiverse. Your conflating layman's terminology with science and demonstrating your ignorance and incompetence in the science involved. Science does not deal with what they 'know,' and this over the top misrepresentation of science based on your religious agenda. Science deals with the falsification of theories and hypothesis as a progressive process as more knowledge becomes available.

You are also atrociously misrepresenting the use of what is 'fact.' Neither the scientist nor I consider the theories and hypothesis concerning the origins of the universe, and the possible existing of multiverses as 'facts.'

[JimL]

Except there are good reasons to believe that matter and energy are not past eternal:http://inference-review.com/article/...f-the-universe

Did you read the part where he says that the theory of quantum creation is no more than a speculative hypothesis. There's a long way to go and I'm sure a whole lot that physicists still don't understand about cosmology.

[Jedidiah]

Did you read the part where he says that the theory of quantum creation is no more than a speculative hypothesis. There's a long way to go and I'm sure a whole lot that physicists still don't understand about cosmology.

Seer, that means your use of such science is not acceptable, Jim's on the other hand is valid.

[seer]

Did you read the part where he says that the theory of quantum creation is no more than a speculative hypothesis. There's a long way to go and I'm sure a whole lot that physicists still don't understand about cosmology.

Well Jim, one of the reasons why quantum creation (creation in the absence of time space or matter) is being looked at so intently is because there is no way to get to an eternal past for matter and energy.

[Sparko]

Please respond . . .

This does not reflect the view of the physicists and cosmologists, nor I concerning the origins of our universe, nor the existence of the multiverse. Your conflating layman's terminology with science and demonstrating your ignorance and incompetence in the science involved. Science does not deal with what they 'know,' and this over the top misrepresentation of science based on your religious agenda. Science deals with the falsification of theories and hypothesis as a progressive process as more knowledge becomes available.

You are also atrociously misrepresenting the use of what is 'fact.' Neither the scientist nor I consider the theories and hypothesis concerning the origins of the universe, and the possible existing of multiverses as 'facts.'

Not a coherent response, and failed to address the issues involved, and only trolling with an agenda.