A Good Infinite Regress Step of Some Cosmological Arguments

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12314
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: A Good Infinite Regress Step of Some Cosmological Arguments

Post by Arising_uk »

thedoc wrote:Often enough that it is no longer in question, except for those who have no understanding.
IC has made the statement that empirical science is only about probabilities and as such there is no such thing as proved wrong.

Still, it's been shown often enough that no-one can produce any evidence that there is your 'god' and yet you still keep believing there is one even tho' it is no longer in question. So are you one of those who has no understanding?
thedoc
Posts: 6473
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: A Good Infinite Regress Step of Some Cosmological Arguments

Post by thedoc »

Arising_uk wrote:
thedoc wrote:Often enough that it is no longer in question, except for those who have no understanding.
IC has made the statement that empirical science is only about probabilities and as such there is no such thing as proved wrong.

Still, it's been shown often enough that no-one can produce any evidence that there is your 'god' and yet you still keep believing there is one even tho' it is no longer in question. So are you one of those who has no understanding?
No, I have my proof which is sufficient for me, you are denying the proof that is facing you, so who is lacking in understanding.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: A Good Infinite Regress Step of Some Cosmological Arguments

Post by Belinda »

The Doc wrote:
No, I have my proof which is sufficient for me, you are denying the proof that is facing you, so who is lacking in understanding.
You, Doc, fail to understand that proof implies evidence. Your faith is based upon subjective symptoms of God which are unaccompanied by objectively verifiable signs of God.

Moreover, there are reasonable beliefs about about diseases as identifiable entities. What is the definable attribute which identifies God? There is none, except for those who accept the edict of popes and suchlike. Did you ever identify the attribute of God which underlies your faith? We have to guess what version of God you are talking about.
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: A Good Infinite Regress Step of Some Cosmological Arguments

Post by ken »

Noax wrote:
ken wrote:If all the rules I am using fit in with all the laws of the natural world, then I am not applying the wrong rules. I am just providing a very simple Theory Of Everything.
I know you put IF in front of your statement, but it would be a more plausible theory if you used laws that science actually acknowledges, or back up your law if you're going to make one up, like "every action causes a reaction".
I thought I already changed the above law to the one you implied science already actually acknowledges, that is 'every action is accompanied by a reaction'.

Can you think of any reaction that was or is not accompanied by an action?
Noax wrote:Also, remember we're talking cosmology here, and Newtonian laws hardly apply on the scale of cosmology. Newtonian laws about causality only work when you average things out, and are shown to be false on discreet observations.
I do not care about human laws. If I was to follow human beings, then I too would be as confused, and still wondering, as they are now. I would still be continually searching for answers as they do now. I, instead, look at 'what is,' and then express what I see. If what I see and express does not fit in with what is Natural lore or what naturally happens, then I am pretty sure that will be pointed out to Me. I am only learning how to express the story of what I see. I would never express that what I see is true, correct nor right. I only express what I observe, see, and understand. HOW I view things is far more important then what I see anyway. Until the full story is told how all of what I see fits together will not be known.
Noax wrote:
Noax wrote:The one you want is that every cause-event must eventually be the cause some effect-event, and while there is no such rule, if there was, it would only prove that time cannot end.
If this new rule, which is being created here, proves that time cannot end, and thus is eternal, then that will be that part over and done with.
So I say "If A, then B", but A is not true, so B (time cannot end) is left as unproven as ever.
If B is 'time cannot end', then what is A, and, why do you say, "but A is not true"?

If every cause-event causes/creates some effect-event, and, every effect-event when interacts with some other effect-event is a cause-event, then that, by itself, proves one eternal event, which by the way can be proved when combined with a couple of other things, namely that time is not a thing, in of itself, and that there really is only one ever-present NOW event happening. But how to express all of this succinctly takes "time".
Noax wrote:
Noax wrote:It makes no statement about all events being effects caused by some prior thing. It does not preclude an initial state.
If all events are the effect of a prior event, then how could there be an initial event?
When did I ever say all events are effects of prior events? I can think of many counterexamples.
Prescribing to an initial state implies that there was a beginning of 'ALL there is', of which there is absolutely no evidence for.
Well, calling it a 'beginning' is a category error again.
Stating an initial state implies a 'beginning'. I am the one suggesting it would be better if human beings get out of thinking that there was an initial state, a beginning, a first, or any other thing that categorizes that there was a start. Without evidence it is better to just remain open completely and always. Suggesting there was an initial state is just as much a category error as suggesting that there was not one. Remaining open allows 'what actually is' to be seen.
Noax wrote: But several of us has posted quite a bit of evidence for the case (the same evidence that there is a 'bottom' to the pile of rocks holding up my mailbox). I cannot help it that you turn a blind eye to that and declare it 'no evidence', only choosing evidence that support a conclusion that you already know.
WHAT is the alleged conclusion that, you say, I supposedly already know?

When human beings anthropomorphize what I write, it is such a foolish thing to do. I do not look for any thing to support My conclusions for the very simple fact that I do NOT have any conclusions, yet. You may well have your conclusion already about there actually being a beginning. But I have no conclusion whatsoever, either way.

YOUR "evidence" about a pile of rocks holding up your mailbox is NOT sound evidence. Your evidence looks from a very small or very narrow field of view of things, thus the reason why you are not seeing the big or whole picture of all things. There is NO 'top', 'bottom', 'up', nor, 'down' in the Universe. So to talk of such things as rocks going all the way "down" or holding things "up" is just non-sensical regarding issues involving the Universe Itself.

I have NOT turned a blind eye to your "evidence", I just do NOT see it as evidence, as just explained why I do not.
Noax wrote:
Why do some people think, assume, and/or believe that an initial state MUST be precluded?
Closed minded, I know. But here you are seeming to do exactly that.
HOW do you propose that I am doing, what you call, closed-minded? I have NO conclusion so I can therefore NOT be believing (in) any thing. SO, what could I actually be "closed-minded" about? I have NEVER said there was no initial state. I just need to see evidence of how there could be an initial state, which no human has yet provided any. I have, however, seen HOW an infinite and eternal Universe could easily exist. I, obviously, can not provide evidence of this, so I need to formulate a story including sound, valid arguments for what I observe.
Noax wrote:
Noax wrote:Assuming you mean cause and effect,
At this very moment either action-reaction or cause-effect will suffice.
They're completely different things. Very confusing to interchange the words.
You have proposed them as as though they are completely different things, but that does NOT mean that they necessarily are. The way you are leading Me along here, I see that I will be changing these laws slightly, but not opposing from their previous contexts and meanings, to some thing more in line with Natural Lore, which will be different from how they are expressed now, but not necessarily completely different. I have yet to see how exactly they fit together and work naturally, for this change to take place yet. But I can see this change already.
Noax wrote:
Noax wrote:I can think of things that don't ever effect anything. A photon emitted in a direction reasonably free of clutter (dust clouds mostly) stands a better than even chance of never hitting anything ever.
Is that a "reasonably" free of clutter area or a completely free of clutter area?
The former. Nowhere is completely free of clutter, but at some point the density of the universe became such that a typical photon would probably just go forever instead of probably hit something nearby.
A fairly strong consideration considering there is a huge amount of the Universe that is unobservable to human beings. Therefore you have absolutely no idea 'what is out there' and how dense it is or not, but you will still make an assumption anyway.
Noax wrote:
If it is the former, then we are not really sure of that photon never "hitting" any thing ever. "Stands a better than even chance of never hitting anything ever," is not an accurate way of measuring things. The 'chances' are solely depended upon upon how much 'clutter' there is.
From which probability of hitting something can be computed. It is almost zero if the photon has made it away from its point of origin. Consider the typical photon in the sun. Almost none of them make it out, but the few that do will probably never hit anything. Earth is hardly blocking a significant portion of them.
Earth is NOT the only object in the Universe, besides the sun.
Noax wrote:
Now, and if it has not yet been noticed even if a photon never "hits" any thing ever it actually has already caused an effect on some thing. Can what that is be guessed?

That thing is this discussion. And further to this is that that no hitting photon will also have actually made an impact on every thing else that this discussion causes an effect on.
Here I thought you were going to make a point. You're confusing the map with the territory. Discussion of a photon is not affected by any actual photon that never hits anything.
Are you sure of this? A thought, about a photon that supposedly hits no thing, is causing this discussion, and thus every after effect-event also.
Noax wrote:
Noax wrote:Every rock on earth that is not falling is being held up by the stuff under it, and that stuff held up by yet deeper stuff. There has been no measured exception to this. By the logic of everybody posting on this thread, there must be no limit to that, and Earth must go infinitely down. It is flat-Earth thinking,
But there has already been a measured exception, that is Gravity. Although gravity brings things "down", it also holds things "up". Although gravity brings things closer n it also creates positive and negative forces, which then also repels things away.
Gravity repels as well? News to me. Is this made up or can you back this claim with perhaps an example?
I can provide an example of what I observe and think. I just realized I should have used the word 'may' in between 'also' and 'repels' back there. Anyhow, the size of an object and what it is made up of causes a gravity-effect, which brings things, in range, towards the center. This may help in causing circular motion, which in turn may help in creating polar opposites on the object. With two opposites spinning within and/or around other spinning objects also with polar opposites 'may' be a reason why close Universal objects can appear to be "floating" in equilibrium. Relatively never really moving away from each other nor come much closer to each other. They appear to be in held position with and from each other. They obviously cause a drawing in effect on each other, as is shown by the planets being held towards the sun and by the oceans on earth being moved by the moon, but there must also be some sort of repelled motion also to keep things in what looks like to be a relatively 'held' position with and from each other.

I am not sure if that example could back up anything. I really do not know if I am just making it up or not either. I am just expressing what I see and observe.
Noax wrote: Or is this just a distraction from the point?
No, it is NOT a distraction from the point.
Noax wrote:My point was that using the logic of "everything on Earth needing to be held up by something under it" is the same logic being used in the cosmological argument. Earth must be turtles all the way down
In cosmology, to Me, there is no "down". There is a centre, though, from which there is an observable viewpoint, from which views are made from, and from which every thing else is "away" from.

It is not that useful at all to look at some thing as big as the Universe Itself only from a human perspective. Human "logic" will NOT work. As proven by trying to use the "logic" there can not be rocks nor turtles all the way "down" to try to prove an already held conclusion.

But there certainly can be and there is a NOW, from which all else is observed from. This NOW can be infinite, obviously without a starting point. YOUR "logic" here about "if everything on earth needs to be held up by some thing under it, then that means there can not be infinite" is just NOT the logic I observe and see. How I see things is from a truly open perspective, and from there I can see how an infinite NOW is very easily possible. I have also observed how an infinite Universe could be very real and possible.
Noax wrote:
Noax wrote: It (our spacetime) is no more in need of being caused than Earth is in need of being held up.
By the way spacetime is not owned by any thing so it is certainly not 'ours'. It 'just is'.
Seriously??? That's how you interpret that statement? Ownership??? Do you honestly think that is what I was trying to express with that statement?
This is what I actually did write previously, in response to your quote here:
ken wrote:
Noax wrote: It (our spacetime) is no more in need of being caused than Earth is in need of being held up.

It is true that no thing is in NEED of being caused, but every thing, (besides the Everything, 'ALL there is' ) is caused by the prior coming together of at least two things. Coming together, itself, is an action, which is accompanied by a reaction, which JUST IS a caused effect-event.

Does this process happen in one continual event?

Have we ever observed a stop or a start event throughout the continum?

Could there be a start? How could that be possible?

Could there be an end? Where could ALL this clutter go to?

By the way spacetime is not owned by any thing so it is certainly not 'ours'. It 'just is'.
So to answer your questions, "No, 'ownership' was NOT what I thought you were trying to express with that statement. I thought that would be obvious by the previous statements and questions I made and asked you in relation to what I actually did think you were trying to express in your statement. So, seriously, 'ownership' was NOT just how I interpreted your statement. If you honestly thought that just My last, "By the way ...", remark was how I only interpreted your statement, then you must of missed or misinterpreted the first statements and the following questions I asked of you, prior to the very last statement, which obviously was of no real importance to the issue. My last statement was just to highlight how much and how often human beings use the 'our' term, which actually is a term in reference to ownership of things that they obviously could NEVER own.

Noax wrote:
Noax wrote: Objects within our spacetime have the property of being in need of causation.
Why do these objects NEED?
I see them as being caused but not necessarily being NEEDED to be caused.
Because without being caused, they would not exist. The objects need the cause for their existence. Again, you seem to be deliberately ascribing the inappropriate meaning to an unimportant word. It seems to be your only defense when confronted with conflicting statements.
Pointing out the use of words human beings use is NOT a defense in any way, shape, nor form. What you say is the "inappropriate meaning", I could also say the meaning you give is also inappropriate. 'Inappriopriatory' is extremely relative.

You say the objects within spacetime NEED to be caused, for their existence, however do you apply this NEED for causation to spacetime, itself, also? Does spacetime have the property of being in need of causation? Or, can spacetime just exist without being caused? And, if spacetime can just exist without having the property of being in "need" of causation, then would that lean towards spacetime existing always?
Noax wrote:
Noax wrote:Spacetime itself is not an object in spacetime, and it is a category error to apply the rules of object within it to the container.
I do NOT see spacetime itself as being an object in spacetime. I do not know of anything that is also an object within itself.
And yet the cosmological argument rests upon doing exactly that: Applying the properties of objects in spacetime to the spacetime itself.
The cosmological "argument" is as unsound and invalid as arguing that never-ending turtles holds up earth. The ridiculous in and of both "arguments" is very clear.

I could just as easily say the Universe itself is not an object in the Universe, and it is a category error to apply the rules of object within it to the Container. But I will not because it would be stating "the bloody obvious", as some one here used to say.
Noax wrote:
Did I make this category error? I just ask people to think about if spacetime could be just another part of 'ALL there is' or 'Everything'. Maybe it is. Maybe it is not.
Yes, you made this error, as does Craig, who very much knows better, but also knows the naivety of his audience that pays him to bolster their known view.
In the set of 'all there is', there is no rule of causation at all. There isn't such a rule in spacetime either, but that point is at least debatable. The proponents of the cosmological argument typically include God as part of 'all there is', and yet God is immune from the necessity of being caused. So there is apparently no requirement for members of the set of 'all there is' to be caused.
I think you might have Me mixed up with human beings who pick, and fight for, one side or the other.
Noax wrote:
Also, I ask people to think about whether spacetime began to exist, without a prior cause or action, and/or how does spacetime have an "edge" or "boundary" or similar word, and how these could really be possible in a physical sense? I would be delighted if a reasonable response was given to what defines the "boundary" and what was the actual prior action that was accompanied by the big bang reaction?
It is an error to say it began to exist,
Well I am NOT the one who says it began to exist. I am the one who suggests it is better to NOT say, "In the beginning..." because that implies that there was a beginning.
Noax wrote: because that means there was a time before it existed.
Well I am NOT the one saying there was a time before what is generally referred to as the big bang. I am the who suggests it is better to NOT assume that there was also no time before the big bang, because that implies that there was a beginning to spacetime.
Noax wrote: Time is part of spacetime, so if spacetime does not exist, there is no place or time where it isn't existing.
But to suggest that spacetime did not always exist, infinitely and eternally, is to assume that spacetime came into existence. Accordingly, to suggest that spacetime did always exist, infinitely and eternally, is to assume that spacetime was always in existence. For all we know "this" spacetime might just be a tiny part of a much bigger, and much different, Universe.
Noax wrote: The error is in the naive assumption that time is separate from, well, from the rest I guess, and thus there was a time when the rest was not there. But all the matter and energy and stuff of this existence is what defines time.
All assumptions made, are made naively. To assume anything other than what is observed and seen is an error. What defines 'time' is human beings, and human beings are not the best observers there are. Human beings are limited by what they have observed, and they have not observed that much at all really. Most of them have very limited vision. Most are very short-sighted and have a very narrow view of things. What I have observed is most of the observations human beings make are made on the back of the beliefs that they already have. What most observe is usually only what they want to see anyway.

If all the matter and energy and stuff of this existence is what defines time, as you propose here, then the question still remains how long has "this" existence been around for?
Noax wrote:As for boundaries, there is just the big bang, which is sort of like the south pole in that you can't be further south than that, but that doesn't mean you bump into a barrier when you get to the south pole. There is no boundary to space. Think of objective spacetime (vastly simplified to remove relativity) as a two-dimensional infinite plane with polar coordinates . So any point on this plane can be expressed by two values, the radial distance from the center (time), and the angular value (space). The angular value can be positive or negative without limit (no boundary), but the radial value is only positive. So things are further apart the larger the radial value. Time 13.7 billion years is a larger circle than the much smaller circle that represents 1 billion years. The picture does not change and thus is not something that 'happens'. Time is part of the picture, not something within which the picture exists.
In reality, there are three spatial dimensions making the whole map a 4-D hyper-polar coordinate system and relativity complicates things since it makes it non-Euclidean for one thing, but most of the model works just fine with just that simplified 2-D abstraction.

Not sure if you find this response reasonable, but I really tried.
My point is to get people to think about who/what actually puts a 'boundary' on the Universe. Obviously people place a boundary, a limit, and/or a finiteness on the Universe by saying things like, "the boundary", when looking out into space and "in the beginning" when they look back in time to the big bang. If human beings stopped putting boundaries and limits on the Universe NOW, with defining terms like those mentioned, then future generations will be far more open when looking at and viewing the Universe, Itself. Looking from and with a truly open view allows the Truth to be seen, and thus found and discovered, much quicker and easier than looking from and with a narrow or closed view. Placing the concept, that the Universe was created, had a beginning, and/or is finite in size without any actual evidence of this, into the thoughts of others is a purely illogical thing to do, from My perspective. Placing the concept that the Universe may or may not be infinite or finite because we just 'DO NOT KNOW' is a far more logical and sensible thing to do, from My perspective.
Noax wrote: It is by no means proof of non-creation, just a picture that helps illustrate the invalidity of the concept of 'before time zero'.
But human beings only made up the defining term "time zero" and say that there was no time "before time zero" because they are unable to see "before" a relatively big bang. Just because human beings can not, yet, see beyond a certain point, they began to assume that there was "no before", and from this assumption they then jumped to the conclusion that the big bang WAS the start of ALL existence.

A rather lot of assuming and conclusion making going on, all without any real proof nor evidence at all. Making conclusions with NO evidence is some thing the "scientific" community allegedly frowns upon, I would have thought. But a lot of human beings in the scientific community insist that the Universe was created by big bang. Based on the fact that other scientific insist that it is so and because it is written in scientific text books. This all reminds Me of other human beings in the religious community who insist the Universe was created by God. Based on the fact that other religious people insist it is so and because it is written in a religious text book.

Ever more assuming, conclusion making, and believing going on now. But this is all still happening with absolutely NO evidence at all. Just so called previous "knowledge" being past on down through the generations. With none of those generations every really stopping and taking a look at what is really going on here.
Noax wrote: There is nowhere in that picture or off the edge of it (it doesn't have edges) that has a negative radial value.
So you now say there is no "edge" to spacetime and/or the Universe, but continually in scientific literature there is talk about the edge of the Universe, as though It is finite, but expanding.
How does what I said here counter the argument that the Universe must be infinite?
How do you define universe here? [/quote]

I define 'Universe' as 'ALL there is' or 'Everything'.
Noax wrote: If it is 'all there is', yes, I don't think that is a finite set and never claimed otherwise. If you're changing the definition mid-post, then clarify the question please.
Okay I did just clarify the question. I also have NEVER deviated one iota from that definition.
Noax wrote: I also think spacetime is infinite, in that there is nowhere you can be that is populated with objects only on one side. The picture I described above is consistent with that.
I am not sure what you mean by, 'there is nowhere you can be that is populated with objects only on one side'. Do you mean one side of the big bang for example, or do you mean some thing else?

Do you think spacetime is infinite, in the sense that roughly the big bang was when spacetime was created or came into existence, and because there was no thing whatsoever before that moment, that is like infinite?

The picture that was being painted and I was getting from what you were describing above was as though the concept of "before" 'time zero' was invalid. I was taking that to mean spacetime was finite from your perspective. ('Time zero' being roughly around the moment of the big bang.)

Or, did you just make a typo and write 'infinite' instead of 'finite'?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: A Good Infinite Regress Step of Some Cosmological Arguments

Post by Immanuel Can »

thedoc wrote:
Arising_uk wrote:
Immanuel Can wrote:...
The cyclical universe idea has been proved wrong, ...
This is hysterical given that IC has repeatedly made the claim that physics is only about probabilities. So how has it been proved 'wrong'?
Often enough that it is no longer in question, except for those who have no understanding.
Well said. The "Red Shift Effect" as discovered by Hubble ruled out any linear-cyclical universe. There's been no way to recover that theory since, without departing normal empirical methods. What Hubble showed was that the universe is expanding with an escape velocity that spreads out the matter in the universe so thinly that there is no hope of it ever reversing. There simply isn't enough density of matter for any known force in the universe to produce a "Big Crunch" and return all matter to a singularity again.

So we can rule out a cyclical universe as beyond any reasonable possibility. True, we cannot "prove" it impossible, as empirical methods can never really do that: but we can say it is beyond any reasonable supposition we currently possess to jump to the conclusion that it could happen.

in other words, it would take an act of pure "bad faith" to believe in a linear-cyclical universe anymore.
thedoc
Posts: 6473
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: A Good Infinite Regress Step of Some Cosmological Arguments

Post by thedoc »

Immanuel Can wrote:
thedoc wrote:
Arising_uk wrote:This is hysterical given that IC has repeatedly made the claim that physics is only about probabilities. So how has it been proved 'wrong'?
Often enough that it is no longer in question, except for those who have no understanding.
Well said. The "Red Shift Effect" as discovered by Hubble ruled out any linear-cyclical universe. There's been no way to recover that theory since, without departing normal empirical methods. What Hubble showed was that the universe is expanding with an escape velocity that spreads out the matter in the universe so thinly that there is no hope of it ever reversing. There simply isn't enough density of matter for any known force in the universe to produce a "Big Crunch" and return all matter to a singularity again.

So we can rule out a cyclical universe as beyond any reasonable possibility. True, we cannot "prove" it impossible, as empirical methods can never really do that: but we can say it is beyond any reasonable supposition we currently possess to jump to the conclusion that it could happen.

in other words, it would take an act of pure "bad faith" to believe in a linear-cyclical universe anymore.
The only way that this could change is if science discovers some form of matter, in a large enough quantity, that has been undetected, that also effects gravity.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: A Good Infinite Regress Step of Some Cosmological Arguments

Post by Immanuel Can »

thedoc wrote:The only way that this could change is if science discovers some form of matter, in a large enough quantity, that has been undetected, that also effects gravity.
Yes, that's right. If we were to discover a new force that is not gravitational, and doesn't involve having a certain amount of mass available, and reverses escape-velocities and so on, then we'd be in a new game entirely. Unfortunately for anyone who might look for that, there isn't one physical force known to man that is remotely capable of so reversing the effects of every other empirically-demonstrable physical force.

So even to suppose such a things can appear would be the ultimate act of gratuitous faith on their part.
thedoc
Posts: 6473
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: A Good Infinite Regress Step of Some Cosmological Arguments

Post by thedoc »

Yes you're right it would need to be some as yet undetected force, because science can measure gravity. According to what science now understands the universe will continue to expand till the "big Chill", I believe that is the correct term.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: A Good Infinite Regress Step of Some Cosmological Arguments

Post by Immanuel Can »

thedoc wrote:...the "big Chill", I believe that is the correct term.
Yes, or also called "heat death," because at that point the universe has no differentiation in "heat" or energy, and cannot have any forever, since all the universe's matter is homogeneously distributed. Nothing can interact anymore.
thedoc
Posts: 6473
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: A Good Infinite Regress Step of Some Cosmological Arguments

Post by thedoc »

Immanuel Can wrote:
thedoc wrote:...the "big Chill", I believe that is the correct term.
Yes, or also called "heat death," because at that point the universe has no differentiation in "heat" or energy, and cannot have any forever, since all the universe's matter is homogeneously distributed. Nothing can interact anymore.
Didn't science, at one time, believe that in the end everything would stop moving and the temperature would be absolute zero. I believe the theory was that everything would stop moving and motion is the expression of heat, therefore everything would be at absolute zero.
User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8364
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: A Good Infinite Regress Step of Some Cosmological Arguments

Post by Hobbes' Choice »

thedoc wrote:
Immanuel Can wrote:
thedoc wrote:...the "big Chill", I believe that is the correct term.
Yes, or also called "heat death," because at that point the universe has no differentiation in "heat" or energy, and cannot have any forever, since all the universe's matter is homogeneously distributed. Nothing can interact anymore.
Didn't science, at one time, believe that in the end everything would stop moving and the temperature would be absolute zero. I believe the theory was that everything would stop moving and motion is the expression of heat, therefore everything would be at absolute zero.
I think you have this wrong.
Energy cannot be created or destroyed.
The death of the universe comes when all the useful energy has turned into useless heat.
thedoc
Posts: 6473
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: A Good Infinite Regress Step of Some Cosmological Arguments

Post by thedoc »

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
thedoc wrote:
Immanuel Can wrote: Yes, or also called "heat death," because at that point the universe has no differentiation in "heat" or energy, and cannot have any forever, since all the universe's matter is homogeneously distributed. Nothing can interact anymore.
Didn't science, at one time, believe that in the end everything would stop moving and the temperature would be absolute zero. I believe the theory was that everything would stop moving and motion is the expression of heat, therefore everything would be at absolute zero.
I think you have this wrong.
Energy cannot be created or destroyed.
The death of the universe comes when all the useful energy has turned into useless heat.
Energy is the ability to do work and if everything is at the same temperature there is no ability to do work and no energy. So where did the energy go?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: A Good Infinite Regress Step of Some Cosmological Arguments

Post by Immanuel Can »

thedoc wrote:Energy is the ability to do work and if everything is at the same temperature there is no ability to do work and no energy. So where did the energy go?
Quite so. It's evenly distributed, just like food-colouring distributes itself in a glass of water. It diffuses equally, until no part of the universe is, or can be, more intensely "coloured" (i.e. energy-laden) than any other.
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9561
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: A Good Infinite Regress Step of Some Cosmological Arguments

Post by Harbal »

Immanuel Can wrote: So even to suppose such a things can appear would be the ultimate act of gratuitous faith on their part.
You seem to be able to practice gratuitous faith quite happily, theirs would just be in something different.
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12314
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: A Good Infinite Regress Step of Some Cosmological Arguments

Post by Arising_uk »

thedoc wrote:No, I have my proof which is sufficient for me, ...
Well of course it is because you're not talking about proving something to others just what you believe is the case to yourself. However I think you'd believe in the Hindu 'God's' if you'd been born a Hindu.
you are denying the proof that is facing you, ...
What proof?
so who is lacking in understanding.
Understanding about what?
Post Reply