How can we know... "The Universe"

Known unknowns and unknown unknowns!

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
VVilliam
Posts: 1287
Joined: Fri Jun 12, 2020 6:58 pm

Re: How can we know... "The Universe"

Post by VVilliam »

commonsense wrote: Wed Feb 24, 2021 9:02 pm
VVilliam wrote: Wed Feb 24, 2021 8:53 pm
commonsense wrote: Wed Feb 24, 2021 8:38 pm Future nows won’t be recreations. They are predictions or expectations of what a now after the current now will be.
I did not say they were recreations. I was referring to them being part of the process of recreation...assuming you are arguing that the universe has always existed in one form and then another.

This would mean that in a previous incarnation there was a beginning point called the 'now' a midway point [the 'now' now] would have become an end point [future now]
But your “beginning” point can have an infinite number of “beginning” points before it.

There was no point that could be a beginning point. There could not be a true beginning point if there can be another point that begins before the beginning.
I agree and wasn't arguing contrary.

The problem with this theory is that if the universe has always existed and has done so by this recreation process, by learning from its previous incarnations, this implies a mind which in turn implies a creator.

Even so, we would have to wonder why it hasn't already created a perfect universe for it to occupy itself within...
commonsense
Posts: 5115
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: How can we know... "The Universe"

Post by commonsense »

commonsense wrote: Wed Feb 24, 2021 9:02 pm
VVilliam wrote: Wed Feb 24, 2021 9:07 pm
The problem with this theory is that if the universe has always existed and has done so by this recreation process, by learning from its previous incarnations, this implies a mind which in turn implies a creator.

Even so, we would have to wonder why it hasn't already created a perfect universe for it to occupy itself within...
Why would a creator be needed for this process?

(I think I know the answer, but I need to be schooled on this.
User avatar
VVilliam
Posts: 1287
Joined: Fri Jun 12, 2020 6:58 pm

Re: How can we know... "The Universe"

Post by VVilliam »

commonsense wrote: Wed Feb 24, 2021 9:02 pm
VVilliam wrote: Wed Feb 24, 2021 9:07 pm
The problem with this theory is that if the universe has always existed and has done so by this recreation process, by learning from its previous incarnations, this implies a mind which in turn implies a creator.

Even so, we would have to wonder why it hasn't already created a perfect universe for it to occupy itself within...
Why would a creator be needed for this process?

(I think I know the answer, but I need to be schooled on this.
Because the process appears to be intelligent in its unfolding.

But even if the process itself created 'the mind' [in some distant part of infinity past] and even it it took a number of incarnations before that mind came to full realization that it could effect the process and even control the process to the degree where it could use the process in what ever way it wanted to shape the process to that end...if the process has been an infinite one, it should already have created from out of the process, a perfect environment for it to eternally enjoy...

So we have that to think about in relation to this particular theory.

One could argue that it already did this but got 'bored' with the perfection so began creating incarnations purposefully imperfect in order to relieve itself of said boredom...so - "perfect" in that way - for the relief of boredom...

But in that, it is a closed system analogous to a genie in a bottle...forever doomed to either repeat prior incarnations or continue using what is available [material] to find a way to bust out of the bottle - assuming that there is anywhere else outside of the bottle to experience...in the meantime creating ways in which to keep busy...

Essentially this amounts to a seemingly infinite time-space prison in which the mind exists.

The intelligence of that genie-mind may think that it has been 'placed' within said prison-bottle which would give it 'hope' that there is a way 'out'...but meantime create something tolerable, exciting, mystical, seemingly impenetrable ...indeed what do we find when we look?

We see that very thing...
User avatar
VVilliam
Posts: 1287
Joined: Fri Jun 12, 2020 6:58 pm

Re: How can we know... "The Universe"

Post by VVilliam »

As an analogy of what I wrote about in my last post;

Sorry. It Was Me. I Did It.
Scott Mayers
Posts: 2446
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am

Re: How can we know... "The Universe"

Post by Scott Mayers »

bahman wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:00 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:45 pm
bahman wrote: Sun Feb 21, 2021 11:23 pm
1) The act of creation is impossible (the argument)
2) There is a beginning (the arguments)
3) Therefore the universe popped out of nothingness or the universe just existed at the beginning
I've already commented on some of what you said before but like how this particular statement sums up your ideas with the appropriate links to each. Let me take these each at a time now and try to critique or credit what I interpret these with my own additions where necessary.
Oh, thanks for repeating. I don't recall the state of art there.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:45 pm On (1), Creation is impossible

Your argument:
bahman wrote: Sun Mar 22, 2020 5:52 pm There are two states of affair in act of the creation, nothing then something respectively. One state of affair follows another one. This act requires time. Time is a part of the creation itself. Therefore, the act of creation is impossible since this (the act requires time and time is a part of creation) leads to regress.
Creation is not formally defined (though you may have done this in that thread). I believe this is at least easy to infer though.
Thanks. I should have added the definition of creation.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:45 pm My interpretation of your argument given charity to missing premises:
(1) By creation, you seem to mean "the absolute original causation from the state of absolutely nothing; [Definition of creation]
I agree with the definition.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:45 pm (2) With absolutely nothing, not even time 'exists'; [Implied by the Definition of Absolutely Nothing]
I agree with the definition.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:45 pm (3) The act of such absolute causation (creation) is an action which implies it requires time prior to time's origin;
I agree with the argument&the premise.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:45 pm (4)Time's cause then begs the meaning of absolute creation circularly;
Could you please elaborate?
In (3), I stated that creation is an 'act' as part of the beginning of the sentence. Actions are TIME-dependent. Thus, 'creation' is also dependent upon time.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:45 pm (5)Circular meanings cannot be interpreted meaningfully and thus default to mean 'false' and thus 'impossible'.
Could you please elaborate?
As per the prior response, if TIME is needed for the ACT of 'proving', then you cannot argue an origin OF TIME.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:45 pm (6)Thus creation as a time-dependent concept cannot be true in principle. That is, "creation" is impossible. [Conclusion]
Yes, that is the conclusion but I don't see how it follows from (4) and (5). From (3) I argue that this leads to a regress...
I was clarifying the validity of the proof but with firmer grounds. It is also key to notice that this also helps to dismiss this as an argument AGAINST 'origins' but against SPECIAL origins via some 'god' or other possible 'powers of creation' to an ABSOLUTE ORIGIN. The term is not something that I would use outside of arguing against religious claims. 'Creation' as a term implies a 'creator' and thus WOULD regress to infinite regression in the extreme case of Totality arising out of absolutely nothing. However, it would not defend an origin out of nothing given the fact that an 'origin' doesn't necessitate meaning a 'time' but rather a 'place' in STATIC terms. Time, when understood as an 'origin' refers statically to a mere 'dimension' of SPACE.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:45 pm I've given some extended liberty to add some things here that I believe are understood but you may possibly disagree in wording.
I don't understand (4) and (5) so I cannot tell that I agree.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:45 pm It might be better to point out the 'meaninglessness' of saying that something 'exists' if it does not involve time. However, the 'regression' points to infinite steps which means that existence is always time-dependent and never not true. Thus this would go against your main intention of proving that there is an actual 'beginning' later.
I assume that there is a beginning. The existence of the beginning is discussed later.
I thought you were trying to 'prove' something here. If you ASSUME what you are trying to 'prove', then this is not an argument that ADDS power to the conclusion, but just appears to be only.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:45 pm If there is no origin to time from a state of absolutely nothing can occur, it means anything where no time exists, including any state of 'nothingness' prior to it. You'd have to interpret this to require that there is no such thing as an absolute state of nothingness TO come from, which goes against your second argument I'll be addressing after this.
I assume that there is a beginning.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:45 pm I DO know that in context to the rest that you are attempting to argue similar to my own points against the idea that things WITHIN time cannot speak about what is outside of it as 'existing' but it does not MEAN that there is no outside apriori state of no time absolutely. We just find it 'ineffible', meaning that it cannot in principle be argued true NOR false. This is what I think would be a better argument for this point to set up because it just establishes THAT the states with no time can be certain to be ruled out. It COULD be true but we just cannot determine its truth nor falsity.
Knowledge is time-independent. We are discovering it.

Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:45 pm So, I would alter this particular argument as:
My argument wrote: An 'origin' from the state of absolutely nothing is ineffible.

(1)Given Absolutely Nothing as a possible (candidate) for a state, it cannot 'cause' anything for lacking anything, including a mechanism to 'cause' anything.
True. The process of nothing to something is however possible. I have no argument against it yet?
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:45 pm (2)For something to be PROVEN to change from such a state requires we can witness both states.
What is the point of having a witness?
"Science" is witness-based. You cannot assume your argument about science as valid without an 'observer', which is a 'witness' to what is being observed.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:45 pm (3)The lack of proof though does not in itself mean that the possibility of it being true exists but that it may be in principle unable to be proven nor disproven, and thus, is called ineffible
What do you mean by ineffible?
"Ineffible" by the original meaning, as I am referencing, refers to the inability to describe something for it being beyond the CAPACITY of something to do so. For example, the above reference of time to be required to 'prove' anything, to speak of a 'time before time' is not 'provable' in terms of observation (and thus science. It can be in terms of logic but many who ONLY think in terms of observing ONLY as 'proof', even this is hard for them to follow. In this sense, it is also 'ineffible' to them in principle.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:45 pm (4)Therefore, an 'origin' from the state of Absolutely Nothing is ineffible. [conclusion]
I cannot reach to this conclusion yet.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:45 pm The advantage of this is that it does not lead to the mistake of your 'regression' to imply the contradiction that time NEVER NOT existed, itself an unprovable claim and that contradicts your intended combined larger argument.
It is provable. I will discuss this later.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:45 pm Your second argument is to assert a beginning based on two points:

I did respond in that thread but do not recall you responding. But obviously you felt here in this thread that it still stood. So let me critique it again here for completion.

A 'closed' system is finite or "bounded", meaning that the whole can be treated as 'finite' if you have external known points outside that confine the infinite as one whole. We use the term Universe to describe this concept. But while we understand the meaning of this whole, we cannot be certain THAT something exists beyond to define this as 'bounded' with certainty. If it is the case that nothing lies outside, then the internal state is infinite because the whole is also a proper 'part' of itself, especially if we are confined to time. This means that you can imagine getting to the edge of this Universe but if you were to attempt to reach out to its 'present' size, as you attempted to touch this boundary, it would be extended by the time you could possibly reach it and so could NOT actually touch it.
A closed system is a system that does not interact with anything else. The whole is a closed system since there is nothing left to interact with.
No, we cannot determine this other than the nature of using a finite term to define something infinite (or infinitesimal). A closed system is 'finite' with clarity; but it is controversial as to whether a 'continuum' is or is not 'closed'. It is 'bounded' IF we can determine THAT there is something on the other side of such 'containment'. But if it were all that could exist, there is no OUTSIDE, making it unable to be bounded either.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:45 pm In physics, the closed system regarding entropy assumes that there is and was some FIXED amount of energy in the Universe (via Big Bang version cosmology). Unlike the Steady State version that treats the DENSITY of energy constant but NOT FIXED by any finite amount, the present Standard Model takes the view that given this 'fixed' energy exists AND that space itself continues to expand, then and only then does entropy decrease. So the Standard Model argues that there WILL be heat death in direct defiance of your position.
The whole is not interacting by anything. Therefore, entropy increases within.
You cannot speak of 'entropy' in open systems that have no definite boundaries, contrary to many who argue this way with ignorance. The assumption in science is based on the ASSUMPTION that a FIXED FINITE quantity of energy existed instantaneously at the Big Bang and stays constant BUT that space is allowed to come from no where without requiring conservation. This is flawed on the basis that space is literally NOTHING (in terms of 'volumes' that matter, as 'something' has as a property). This to me is fautly logic if it is treated as 'science', because it cannot itself be 'observed' as LACKING meaning of quantity. If space is literally 'nothing' how can we have more or less of it?
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:45 pm Note though that the Big Bang version still implies boundaries exist due to assuming that the appearance of a singularity implies an origin. They do not support the idea that time is eternal unless there are other outside worlds beyond this. But that is speculation for those who maintain this model. Regardless, it begs an origin (and possibly) an end. For certain, they believe that there is an eventual expansion but no new energy, thus entropy increases. Yet, the Steady State model does not postulate origins (nor endings), even if they may exist sometime. That theory supports a 'steady' state of energy distribution. As space 'expands' so too would the energy where space is itself always carries with it energy.
The whole is boundless. I don't agree with the existence of boundaries.
Then how can you even argue for "beginning" of cosmological concepts? I mentioned the term 'boundary' requires proof of something certain on the other sides of time. A 'beginning' (time concept) requires proof that some singularity is LITERAL, not merely an appearance that 'converging' mathematical lines demonstrate.

Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:45 pm So neither model supports your first argument. You COULD argue for the present more accepted Big Bang theory in the Standard Model but cannot 'prove' anything logical by this. It would only be speculative and dependent upon the singularity. But given others of the present Standard model also argue THAT other worlds are possible, especially with respect to Quantum theories, this would allow for continuity beyond the singularity and so the 'beginning' of this Universe would no longer be treated as having an ABSOLUTE origin. Science cannot thus support your particular argument regarding thermodynamics.
The standard model is an approximation of reality. We cannot depend on it.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:45 pm Although your argument-A is out, it was only inductively based but you are attempting to argue apriori, which leaves argument-B, the logical one, potentially viable. Let's look at that.
I don't agree that argument A is out.
Unknown reference wrote: To repeat for ease of reference:


Suppose that there is no beginning. Just imagine that you travel back in time. there is no beginning therefore you keep going back unboundedly. Can you reach the edge? Of course, not there is no edge. Now, there are people who assume that they existed at the point that they cannot reach by traveling back in time forgetting that the opposite process is also impossible.


I am talking about eternity which is bigger than infinity. It is unbounded. How could you be there!?


I don't need to see the infinite past.


I mean once you role out God then theings has to start on their own way if there is a beginning. I argue in favor of beginning. Therefore, 3) follows.
I don't agree with this state: {Absolute-Something, Absolute-Nothingness}. You cannot have nothing with something.
I don't know where you got that last quote. It was not mine and so I relabeled it as such. But your response DOES relate to the post but lacks the actual quote for certain context.

However, how do you presume that 'nothing' cannot coexist with 'something'? Maybe your contention is with the "absolute nothing" only? If so, I argue that "nothing" is the only universal concept that CAN exist by itself AND that ANY 'nothing' is identical to the 'absolute'. That is, any local concept of nothing is indifferent to my meaning of the 'absolute nothingness'. It is UNIQUE to this property and we would not have a term for it if it literally had no meaning.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: How can we know... "The Universe"

Post by bahman »

Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Mar 10, 2021 8:35 am
bahman wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:00 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:45 pm
I've already commented on some of what you said before but like how this particular statement sums up your ideas with the appropriate links to each. Let me take these each at a time now and try to critique or credit what I interpret these with my own additions where necessary.
Oh, thanks for repeating. I don't recall the state of art there.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:45 pm On (1), Creation is impossible

Your argument:

Creation is not formally defined (though you may have done this in that thread). I believe this is at least easy to infer though.
Thanks. I should have added the definition of creation.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:45 pm My interpretation of your argument given charity to missing premises:
I agree with the definition.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:45 pm (2) With absolutely nothing, not even time 'exists'; [Implied by the Definition of Absolutely Nothing]
I agree with the definition.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:45 pm (3) The act of such absolute causation (creation) is an action which implies it requires time prior to time's origin;
I agree with the argument&the premise.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:45 pm (4)Time's cause then begs the meaning of absolute creation circularly;
Could you please elaborate?
In (3), I stated that creation is an 'act' as part of the beginning of the sentence. Actions are TIME-dependent. Thus, 'creation' is also dependent upon time.
I agree.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:45 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:45 pm (5)Circular meanings cannot be interpreted meaningfully and thus default to mean 'false' and thus 'impossible'.
Could you please elaborate?
As per the prior response, if TIME is needed for the ACT of 'proving', then you cannot argue an origin OF TIME.
Act of 'proving'? Are you saying the act of creation? In the second case, we could have an origin without a creator.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:45 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:45 pm (6)Thus creation as a time-dependent concept cannot be true in principle. That is, "creation" is impossible. [Conclusion]
Yes, that is the conclusion but I don't see how it follows from (4) and (5). From (3) I argue that this leads to a regress...
I was clarifying the validity of the proof but with firmer grounds. It is also key to notice that this also helps to dismiss this as an argument AGAINST 'origins' but against SPECIAL origins via some 'god' or other possible 'powers of creation' to an ABSOLUTE ORIGIN. The term is not something that I would use outside of arguing against religious claims. 'Creation' as a term implies a 'creator' and thus WOULD regress to infinite regression in the extreme case of Totality arising out of absolutely nothing.
Yes, I agree.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:45 pm However, it would not defend an origin out of nothing given the fact that an 'origin' doesn't necessitate meaning a 'time' but rather a 'place' in STATIC terms. Time, when understood as an 'origin' refers statically to a mere 'dimension' of SPACE.
I cannot follow you here.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:45 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:45 pm I've given some extended liberty to add some things here that I believe are understood but you may possibly disagree in wording.
I don't understand (4) and (5) so I cannot tell that I agree.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:45 pm It might be better to point out the 'meaninglessness' of saying that something 'exists' if it does not involve time. However, the 'regression' points to infinite steps which means that existence is always time-dependent and never not true. Thus this would go against your main intention of proving that there is an actual 'beginning' later.
I assume that there is a beginning. The existence of the beginning is discussed later.
I thought you were trying to 'prove' something here. If you ASSUME what you are trying to 'prove', then this is not an argument that ADDS power to the conclusion, but just appears to be only.
No, in here I don't show that there is a beginning but I assume it and show that that could not be due to God (first premise). I then prove that there is a beginning (second premise). The conclusion then follows.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:45 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:45 pm If there is no origin to time from a state of absolutely nothing can occur, it means anything where no time exists, including any state of 'nothingness' prior to it. You'd have to interpret this to require that there is no such thing as an absolute state of nothingness TO come from, which goes against your second argument I'll be addressing after this.
I assume that there is a beginning.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:45 pm I DO know that in context to the rest that you are attempting to argue similar to my own points against the idea that things WITHIN time cannot speak about what is outside of it as 'existing' but it does not MEAN that there is no outside apriori state of no time absolutely. We just find it 'ineffible', meaning that it cannot in principle be argued true NOR false. This is what I think would be a better argument for this point to set up because it just establishes THAT the states with no time can be certain to be ruled out. It COULD be true but we just cannot determine its truth nor falsity.
Knowledge is time-independent. We are discovering it.

Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:45 pm So, I would alter this particular argument as:
True. The process of nothing to something is however possible. I have no argument against it yet?
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:45 pm (2)For something to be PROVEN to change from such a state requires we can witness both states.
What is the point of having a witness?
"Science" is witness-based. You cannot assume your argument about science as valid without an 'observer', which is a 'witness' to what is being observed.
You only need an observer in quantum measurement.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:45 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:45 pm (3)The lack of proof though does not in itself mean that the possibility of it being true exists but that it may be in principle unable to be proven nor disproven, and thus, is called ineffible
What do you mean by ineffible?
"Ineffible" by the original meaning, as I am referencing, refers to the inability to describe something for it being beyond the CAPACITY of something to do so. For example, the above reference of time to be required to 'prove' anything, to speak of a 'time before time' is not 'provable' in terms of observation (and thus science. It can be in terms of logic but many who ONLY think in terms of observing ONLY as 'proof', even this is hard for them to follow. In this sense, it is also 'ineffible' to them in principle.
I see. So you mean ineffable.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:45 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:45 pm (4)Therefore, an 'origin' from the state of Absolutely Nothing is ineffible. [conclusion]
I cannot reach to this conclusion yet.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:45 pm The advantage of this is that it does not lead to the mistake of your 'regression' to imply the contradiction that time NEVER NOT existed, itself an unprovable claim and that contradicts your intended combined larger argument.
It is provable. I will discuss this later.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:45 pm Your second argument is to assert a beginning based on two points:

I did respond in that thread but do not recall you responding. But obviously you felt here in this thread that it still stood. So let me critique it again here for completion.

A 'closed' system is finite or "bounded", meaning that the whole can be treated as 'finite' if you have external known points outside that confine the infinite as one whole. We use the term Universe to describe this concept. But while we understand the meaning of this whole, we cannot be certain THAT something exists beyond to define this as 'bounded' with certainty. If it is the case that nothing lies outside, then the internal state is infinite because the whole is also a proper 'part' of itself, especially if we are confined to time. This means that you can imagine getting to the edge of this Universe but if you were to attempt to reach out to its 'present' size, as you attempted to touch this boundary, it would be extended by the time you could possibly reach it and so could NOT actually touch it.
A closed system is a system that does not interact with anything else. The whole is a closed system since there is nothing left to interact with.
No, we cannot determine this other than the nature of using a finite term to define something infinite (or infinitesimal). A closed system is 'finite' with clarity; but it is controversial as to whether a 'continuum' is or is not 'closed'. It is 'bounded' IF we can determine THAT there is something on the other side of such 'containment'. But if it were all that could exist, there is no OUTSIDE, making it unable to be bounded either.
No. A close system by definition is a system that does not interact with anything else. The whole is closed therefore since there is nothing to interact with.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:45 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:45 pm In physics, the closed system regarding entropy assumes that there is and was some FIXED amount of energy in the Universe (via Big Bang version cosmology). Unlike the Steady State version that treats the DENSITY of energy constant but NOT FIXED by any finite amount, the present Standard Model takes the view that given this 'fixed' energy exists AND that space itself continues to expand, then and only then does entropy decrease. So the Standard Model argues that there WILL be heat death in direct defiance of your position.
The whole is not interacting by anything. Therefore, entropy increases within.
You cannot speak of 'entropy' in open systems that have no definite boundaries, contrary to many who argue this way with ignorance. The assumption in science is based on the ASSUMPTION that a FIXED FINITE quantity of energy existed instantaneously at the Big Bang and stays constant BUT that space is allowed to come from no where without requiring conservation. This is flawed on the basis that space is literally NOTHING (in terms of 'volumes' that matter, as 'something' has as a property). This to me is fautly logic if it is treated as 'science', because it cannot itself be 'observed' as LACKING meaning of quantity. If space is literally 'nothing' how can we have more or less of it?
I don't think that the amount of energy at the Big Bang was finite.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:45 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:45 pm Note though that the Big Bang version still implies boundaries exist due to assuming that the appearance of a singularity implies an origin. They do not support the idea that time is eternal unless there are other outside worlds beyond this. But that is speculation for those who maintain this model. Regardless, it begs an origin (and possibly) an end. For certain, they believe that there is an eventual expansion but no new energy, thus entropy increases. Yet, the Steady State model does not postulate origins (nor endings), even if they may exist sometime. That theory supports a 'steady' state of energy distribution. As space 'expands' so too would the energy where space is itself always carries with it energy.
The whole is boundless. I don't agree with the existence of boundaries.
Then how can you even argue for "beginning" of cosmological concepts? I mentioned the term 'boundary' requires proof of something certain on the other sides of time. A 'beginning' (time concept) requires proof that some singularity is LITERAL, not merely an appearance that 'converging' mathematical lines demonstrate.
There are two available scenarios, there was something (boundless) at the beginning or nothing.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:45 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:45 pm So neither model supports your first argument. You COULD argue for the present more accepted Big Bang theory in the Standard Model but cannot 'prove' anything logical by this. It would only be speculative and dependent upon the singularity. But given others of the present Standard model also argue THAT other worlds are possible, especially with respect to Quantum theories, this would allow for continuity beyond the singularity and so the 'beginning' of this Universe would no longer be treated as having an ABSOLUTE origin. Science cannot thus support your particular argument regarding thermodynamics.
The standard model is an approximation of reality. We cannot depend on it.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:45 pm Although your argument-A is out, it was only inductively based but you are attempting to argue apriori, which leaves argument-B, the logical one, potentially viable. Let's look at that.
I don't agree that argument A is out.
Unknown reference wrote: To repeat for ease of reference:


Suppose that there is no beginning. Just imagine that you travel back in time. there is no beginning therefore you keep going back unboundedly. Can you reach the edge? Of course, not there is no edge. Now, there are people who assume that they existed at the point that they cannot reach by traveling back in time forgetting that the opposite process is also impossible.


I am talking about eternity which is bigger than infinity. It is unbounded. How could you be there!?


I don't need to see the infinite past.


I mean once you role out God then theings has to start on their own way if there is a beginning. I argue in favor of beginning. Therefore, 3) follows.
I don't agree with this state: {Absolute-Something, Absolute-Nothingness}. You cannot have nothing with something.
I don't know where you got that last quote. It was not mine and so I relabeled it as such. But your response DOES relate to the post but lacks the actual quote for certain context.

However, how do you presume that 'nothing' cannot coexist with 'something'? Maybe your contention is with the "absolute nothing" only? If so, I argue that "nothing" is the only universal concept that CAN exist by itself AND that ANY 'nothing' is identical to the 'absolute'. That is, any local concept of nothing is indifferent to my meaning of the 'absolute nothingness'. It is UNIQUE to this property and we would not have a term for it if it literally had no meaning.
Nothing is absent of anything. So you cannot have something with nothing.
Post Reply