The Universe Shouldn't Exist...

[JimL]

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

Try not to be such an idiot Jed and say something useful. And while you're at it, when are you going to give yourself a warning for calling me a liar?

[JimL]

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.

You're getting way ahead of yourself seer, nobody knows that, and Vilenkins is purely speculative hypothesis.

[seer]

You're getting way ahead of yourself seer, nobody knows that, and Vilenkins is purely speculative hypothesis.

No Jim, it has been becoming pretty clear for a while now that there is no model that can get us to an eternal past for matter and energy. The universe from "nothing", presently is speculative, but there may be nothing else.

[shunyadragon]

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

It is not Jim's science that is valid, nor seer's misuse of science to justify an agenda, it is the physicists, and cosmologists whose science is valid.

[seer]

It is not Jim's science that is valid, nor seer's misuse of science to justify an agenda, it is the physicists, and cosmologists whose science is valid.

Yet when I link scientists like Vilenkin or Ellis you dismiss them. Vilenkin makes the point that matter and energy can not be past eternal, "can not" - his words not mine. That we need to look for a creation even absent of time, space and matter. And Shuny you are the hypocrite here - you need matter and energy to be eternal to confirm your religious belief that matter and energy are co-eternal with your god...

[shunyadragon]

Yet when I link scientists like Vilenkin or Ellis you dismiss them. Vilenkin makes the point that matter and energy can not be past eternal, "can not" - his words not mine. That we need to look for a creation even absent of time, space and matter. And Shuny you are the hypocrite here - you need matter and energy to be eternal to confirm your religious belief that matter and energy are co-eternal with your god...

You perpetually selectively cite only one maybe two scientists as if the selective dishonest citation is the authority, and this is not real science. You dishonestly dismiss other scientists that have alternate explanations using the same Quantum Mechanics. The Vilenkin article you cited considers only whether our universe is past eternal and not whether the greater cosmos is past eternal. Just because one scientist believes something cannot be that does not represent a 'truth' in physics and cosmology. George Ellis agrees with me on this .

As far as George Ellis he concerned is he considers the questions of origins of the universe, the multiverse, and whether our universe is eternal or not are at present unanswered questions. In this video he addresses these issues. The most important remark by him is, like me, he considers whether the universe is eternal or not an unanswered question and subject to hypothetical science beginning about 30:00 in the talk on cosmology. George Ellis does not agree with you that an eternal cosmos cannot be the case.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tq8-eLGpEHc

Note: George Ellis does not say that many of these questions cannot be answered in the future, but he does indicate that developing a coherent theory on Quqntum Gravity has not yet been achieved, and a great deal of the science of the origins of the universe would hinge of this.

I personally only consider the existence of the multiverse only possible, and not directly testable, like George Ellis proposes.

[seer]

You perpetually selectively cite only one maybe two scientists as if the selective dishonest citation is the authority, and this is not real science. You dishonestly dismiss other scientists that have alternate explanations using the same Quantum Mechanics. The article you cited considers only whether our universe is past eternal and not whether the greater cosmos is past eternal. Just because one scientist believes something cannot be that does not represent a 'truth' in physics and cosmology. George Ellis agrees with me on this .

As far as George Ellis he concerned is he considers the questions of origins of the universe, the multiverse, and whether our universe is eternal or not are at present unanswered questions. In this video he addresses these issues. The most important remark by him is, like me, he considers whether the universe is eternal or not an unanswered question and subject to hypothetical science beginning about 30:00 in the talk on cosmology.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tq8-eLGpEHc

Right yet Ellis believes the universe or multiverse was Created by God (http://www.counterbalance.org/ctns-vo/ellis4-body.html). And Vilenkin went over the three major theories - multiverse/inflation, cyclical or expansion from a past static universe. How none of them are possible. http://now.tufts.edu/articles/beginning-was-beginning

And Shuny, you too are serving a religious agenda, because of the teaching of your faith you need to keep the door open for matter and energy being past eternal.

[One Bad Pig]

Try not to be such an idiot Jed and say something useful.

Oh, the irony.

[Sparko]

Logically you can't have an eternal universe. That would effectively be an actual infinity. Which makes possible all sorts of problems and contradictions.

Like why hasn't everything decayed into an entropy state? And even if new matter is being produced, you would still end up with a universe full of dead matter. In fact the universe would be completely full of matter after an infinite amount of time of it producing new matter. And if the universe itself is infinite in space (which we know it isn't) then you have even more contradictions, because if there is infinite space and time, then all imagined and unimagined possibilities have a 100% chance of occurring. You could have an infinite number of identical galaxies to our own, complete with earth and every person alive being exactly the same. You would also have a an infinite number of variations on this Earth. And a universe where there are NO duplicates is also 100% probable. Which contradicts the others. Just can't happen.

[oxmixmudd]

Logically you can't have an eternal universe. That would effectively be an actual infinity. Which makes possible all sorts of problems and contradictions.

Like why hasn't everything decayed into an entropy state? And even if new matter is being produced, you would still end up with a universe full of dead matter. In fact the universe would be completely full of matter after an infinite amount of time of it producing new matter. And if the universe itself is infinite in space (which we know it isn't) then you have even more contradictions, because if there is infinite space and time, then all imagined and unimagined possibilities have a 100% chance of occurring. You could have an infinite number of identical galaxies to our own, complete with earth and every person alive being exactly the same. You would also have a an infinite number of variations on this Earth. And a universe where there are NO duplicates is also 100% probable. Which contradicts the others. Just can't happen.

I don't think these are valid consequences. If the multiverse itself is of a sort that can have infinite past, it could be spawning universes that are themselves not of this sort, that is that have beginnings. That is, there might be an infinitude of dead universes out there spawned from the multiverse, each in turn which might have spawned other universes which have a begining, do not have an infinite past, and for which some infinitessimally small subset of which have not yet reached heat death (our own being one). I'd be curious to know if a timeless universe could spawn other universes (spawn being a verb => time). So it may be required that the multiverse 'egg' be a non-expanding universe of infinite past but with a time dimension and perhaps itself be a universe without entropy (which may be what it means not to expand). I'd also wonder if universes can exist where there is no entropy, no expansion, and/or no time.

I'd also wonder if the "can't have inifinte past" takes into account an infinitude of infinitely large universes which themselves spawn an infinitude of child universes. Seems the concepts proposed are necessarily presuming a finite set of universes and/or some finite extent to those universes at some epoch N and then working backwards from that. That is, I can work backwards in an infinite but ordered set and never ever reach a 'first' value. For example, I could start with all the integers, then with that infinite set of values, create a set of pairs from that set (say (n,n-1) foreach n a member of I) and then create another infinite set from that infinte set of pairs that is the average of each of the two paired values*2. But that set would be just as large (have the same cardinality) as the first set, even though two values from the first set are required to produce each single value of the second. There is a sense of reduction (2 values in A become only 1 value in B), but no migration to a 'smaller' or 'first' such set. Each set is in fact the same as its predecessor.

I'm speaking as a layman here, just total speculation. Others with a more objective grasp of the mathematics and theory would need to jump in and put legs on the idea if they exist.

Jim

[Sparko]

I don't think these are valid consequences. If the multiverse itself is of a sort that can have infinite past, it could be spawning universes that are themselves not of this sort, that is that have beginnings. That is, there might be an infinitude of dead universes out there spawned from the multiverse, each in turn which might have spawned other universes which have a begining, do not have an infinite past, and for which some infinitessimally small subset of which have not yet reached heat death (our own being one). I'd be curious to know if a timeless universe could spawn other universes (spawn being a verb => time). So it may be required that the multiverse 'egg' be a non-expanding universe of infinite past but with a time dimension and perhaps itself be a universe without entropy (which may be what it means not to expand). I'd also wonder if universes can exist where there is no entropy, no expansion, and/or no time.

I'd also wonder if the "can't have inifinte past" takes into account an infinitude of infinitely large universes which themselves spawn an infinitude of child universes. Seems the concepts proposed are necessarily presuming a finite set of universes and/or some finite extent to those universes at some epoch N and then working backwards from that. That is, I can work backwards in an infinite but ordered set and never ever reach a 'first' value. For example, I could start with all the integers, then with that infinite set of values, create a set of pairs from that set (say (n,n-1) foreach n a member of I) and then create another infinite set from that infinte set of pairs that is the average of each of the two paired values*2. But that set would be just as large (have the same cardinality) as the first set, even though two values from the first set are required to produce each single value of the second. There is a sense of reduction (2 values in A become only 1 value in B), but no migration to a 'smaller' or 'first' such set. Each set is in fact the same as its predecessor.

I'm speaking as a layman here, just total speculation. Others with a more objective grasp of the mathematics and theory would need to jump in and put legs on the idea if they exist.

Jim

same problems. if the multiverse is infinite in time or space then you have 100% chance that it never spawned any universes and that it spawned an infinite number. Both are true. That it spawned an infinite number of universes that are identical to our own and an infinite number of universes that are similar to our own and an infinite number that are nothing like ours.

[oxmixmudd]

I don't think these are valid consequences. If the multiverse itself is of a sort that can have infinite past, it could be spawning universes that are themselves not of this sort, that is that have beginnings. That is, there might be an infinitude of dead universes out there spawned from the multiverse, each in turn which might have spawned other universes which have a begining, do not have an infinite past, and for which some infinitessimally small subset of which have not yet reached heat death (our own being one). I'd be curious to know if a timeless universe could spawn other universes (spawn being a verb => time). So it may be required that the multiverse 'egg' be a non-expanding universe of infinite past but with a time dimension and perhaps itself be a universe without entropy (which may be what it means not to expand). I'd also wonder if universes can exist where there is no entropy, no expansion, and/or no time.

I'd also wonder if the "can't have inifinte past" takes into account an infinitude of infinitely large universes which themselves spawn an infinitude of child universes. Seems the concepts proposed are necessarily presuming a finite set of universes and/or some finite extent to those universes at some epoch N and then working backwards from that. That is, I can work backwards in an infinite but ordered set and never ever reach a 'first' value. For example, I could start with all the integers, then with that infinite set of values, create a set of pairs from that set (say (n,n-1) foreach n a member of I) and then create another infinite set from that infinte set of pairs that is the average of each of the two paired values*2. But that set would be just as large (have the same cardinality) as the first set, even though two values from the first set are required to produce each single value of the second. There is a sense of reduction (2 values in A become only 1 value in B), but no migration to a 'smaller' or 'first' such set. Each set is in fact the same as its predecessor.

I'm speaking as a layman here, just total speculation. Others with a more objective grasp of the mathematics and theory would need to jump in and put legs on the idea if they exist.

Jim

Incidentally, I don't see any conflict between an eternal multiverse and scripture description of God creating the world. At some point we need to understand the 'beginning' of Genesis is the beginning of our world, at most perhaps our universe. Our universe began, and it began in a way that is not at all out of sorts with what scripture describes. So even if the story could be fully reconciled scientifically to that reality, it says nothing about the temporal nature of what lies outside that (e.g. heaven, hell etc).

Jim

[TheLurch]

Like why hasn't everything decayed into an entropy state?

That's not an issue if an infinitely inflationary fabric is the ground state.

Of course, you then get into the issue of it being the ground state for an inflationary fabric, but not for the non-inflationary universes that are spawned from it. And at this point, the physics goes way above my pay grade, and i don't understand how thermodynamics applies.


As for the rest of your post, i think you were treating "universe" as meaning 3 things:
Our universe.
Another universe like ours spawned from the inflationary fabric.
The inflationary fabric itself.

As such, i had a hard time figuring out what you were arguing.

[oxmixmudd]

same problems. if the multiverse is infinite in time or space then you have 100% chance that it never spawned any universes and that it spawned an infinite number. Both are true. That it spawned an infinite number of universes that are identical to our own and an infinite number of universes that are similar to our own and an infinite number that are nothing like ours.

and that is a problem because ...?

Infinite sets have a property called density. The rationals have an infinitude of holes between them which are filled by the reals. There is nothing about an infinite set of universes spawning another infinitude of universe in an infinite space over infinite time that requires they be crowded or full, or that an infinitude of them them could be active 'now' while another infinitude of them are dead, having long ago reached heat death. In fact the number of dead universes could be infintely more than the number of live ones, and there could still be an infinitude of live ones. Each Universe could in fact be creating matter infinitely and depending on the expansion rate, it could be getting more dense, getting less dense, or staying the same density. Infinities are weird. One can't reason well about them using concepts that apply to finite sets.

Jim

[Sparko]

Incidentally, I don't see any conflict between an eternal multiverse and scripture description of God creating the world. At some point we need to understand the 'beginning' of Genesis is the beginning of our world, at most perhaps our universe. Our universe began, and it began in a way that is not at all out of sorts with what scripture describes. So even if the story could be fully reconciled scientifically to that reality, it says nothing about the temporal nature of what lies outside that (e.g. heaven, hell etc).

Jim

I asked that earlier in the thread, why couldn't the multiverse be "heaven" in which God created this universe? the perceived math and science would be the same from our point of view.