Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Detecting God
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 209 of 271 (576857)
08-26-2010 5:05 AM
Reply to: Message 206 by Just being real
08-26-2010 4:28 AM


Re: What counts as detection?
quote:
Here are some other important question that relate to this topic.
Do you agree that the universe is finite? Yes or No?
I'll agree that our universe (which may be embedded in a larger universe) is probably finite spatially, and temporally in the pastward direction. I don't think that I can go further on that, but let's say that that satisfies.
quote:
Do you agree that something can not come from nothing? Yes or No?
Do you agree that if there was ever a time that there was absolutely nothing, that nothing could exist now? Yes or No?
These are essentially the same question and my answer is that it depends on what you consider "nothing". However, let's say "yes" for the sake of argument.
quote:
Do you agree that a yes answer to that last question requires something infinite to exist in order for something now to exist?
Definitely no. It doesn't seem to follow at all.
quote:
Do you agree that for something to exist infinitely it must be self sustaining?
No.
quote:
What is the best term to give to something that is infinite, self sustaining, and able to produce our universe?
I don't know of one. "God" is definitely a poor choice because it refers to a personal entity and no personal qualities are even mentioned above.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by Just being real, posted 08-26-2010 4:28 AM Just being real has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by Just being real, posted 08-26-2010 6:08 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 213 of 271 (576872)
08-26-2010 6:34 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by Just being real
08-26-2010 6:08 AM


Re: What counts as detection?
quote:
Out of curiosity, what is your definition for universe? Mine is everything that exists. So if there were as you said "a larger universe" wouldn't it merely be a part of this "everything?"
Our universe would be the bubble of spacetime that we inhabit plus its contents. Since we can't see "beyond" it, we can't know if there is anything else or if there is whether it is infinite or finite.
And I ought to add that that is definitely not the definition you were using. If there is at least one infinite entity then "everything that exists" (which must include this entity) is also infinite.
quote:
You seem to be saying that you believe that something could now exist if something infinite did not exist.
I am saying that I see no reason why that could not be the case.
quote:
That would mean that you are not sticking to your "for the sake of argument" statement and that you believe something finite can exist in an infinite number. How is this physically possible?
No, it does not. Indeed I cannot see how any reasonable, sane individual could come to such a conclusion. How does the mere suggestion that a finite entity might have a finite cause imply "something finite can exist in an infinite number" ? And why, if we accept the possibility of infinite entities could it then be impossible for there to be an infinite number of finite entities ?
quote:
Also you seemed to indicate that there is no requirements for something infinite to be self sustaining. So how can something infinite exist while needing external forces to feed its existence? That would seem to require the existence of other infinite sources to feed that infinite source. But then wouldn't those sources need to be self sustaining?
Even if it does (and I am not convinced because you have to rule out a cyclic relationship where the collective is self-sustaining but none of the entities that make it up are) that doesn't alter the fact that my statement is entirely correct.
quote:
I agree. Personality is one of the characteristics we generally assign to the term "god." And so far we have mentioned nothing that indicates this infinite, self sustaining, and universe forming entity is sentient. But for now are we not just trying to "detect" god? And not trying to exhaustively define him?
If we can't work out whether the thing we are detecting is God or not, then how can we know that we've detected God ? And I would regard personality as being more important than being infinite or self-sustaining or even creating our universe. Mythology is full of Gods which are finite, not self-sustaining and played little or no role in creating our universe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by Just being real, posted 08-26-2010 6:08 AM Just being real has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by Just being real, posted 08-26-2010 9:00 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 217 of 271 (576883)
08-26-2010 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 215 by Just being real
08-26-2010 9:00 AM


Re: What counts as detection?
quote:
Don't you think the bubble concept is very speculative? Personally (with no reason to even hint of its reality) I think it seems more like a desperate grabbing at straws. But that's just me. At least back in ancient times when some astronomers proposed that the Earth was not the center of the universe, and that other planets might exist out there, they had some observations (such as the moon) with which to make such "wild" claims.
Firstly you must remember that I am NOT saying that there is anything beyond our universe - simply that we do not know. That is hardly speculation. And I don' think that speculations are necessarily "grasping at straws" - you'd have to argue more to make that claim.
quote:
I agree that if there were an infinite entity, then he or it would be part of the "everything" and therefore part of the universe. But with the presupposition that the finite universe proceeded forth from he/it, this would also indicate that before the current finite universe came into being, he/it existed apart from the universe. That would make my reference to this entity separately or prior to the universe, a grammatically accurate one. Also I don't understand why this infinite entities existence within the current universe would necessitate the entire universe be infinite? You lost me on that one.
Firstly if your entity existed prior to our universe it would still be a part of "universe" as you have defined it. And it is obvious that if part of a thing is infinite, the whole must also be infinite. If you define "universe" to mean "everything that exists" the universe can only be finite if there are a finite number of finite entities existing.
quote:
I would again question the existence of such a "cyclic relationship" on the grounds that there is no observations to even hint of one.
In dealing with something so speculative it seems foolish to rule out possibilities just because we have few relevant observations. That seems to me to be nothing more than an argument from ignorance.
quote:
if one such cycle did exist, given that the current observable universe is finite, we would have to impose the reality that this "cycle" would eventually have to break down
No, we would not. Why would we have to ?
quote:
Such a system would then have hoisted upon it the requirements of a beginning. This would mean that if was not an infinite loop. And that puts us back at square one...what came before the loop? How did the loop begin if there were ever a time in which nothing existed?
Ah, so now you are assuming that there was a time when there WAS nothing ? And you assume that your infinite self-sustaining being can come from nothing ? Because if you do not assume that you have just made another non-sequitur.
quote:
Do you see that the existence of anything finite (traced back far enough) logically requires the existence of at least one thing infinite capable of producing the processes that produce the finite thing that exists?
No, I don't. Because it isn't true.
quote:
The definition of something finite is that it has a beginning or an ending. So wouldn't you say the very definition of "finite" places those constraints?
No, it does not. Assuming that you mean temporal infinity (which is far from clear !) then you must also assume that past time is infinite for your argument to work. However it is far from clear that past time is infinite and if it is then our universe must be either temporally infinite in the pastward direction or embedded in a larger spacetime which IS temporally infinite. And so far as I can tell you reject both those options.
quote:
I agree Paul. Personality is a big defining factor in rather we call this "thing" god or just some impersonal effect like energy. But before we can determine rather a thing has personality or not, wouldn't you agree that we have to first be reasonably convinced of its presence?
Fair enough - just don't go calling it "God" until we have got that far.
quote:
Yes but don't you think we could eventually rule out any mythology, if it existed within our concept of who or what god is?
I don't think we can rule out it's relevance to what we consider a god - at least not for a long time to come. It's an essential part of the history of the concept.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by Just being real, posted 08-26-2010 9:00 AM Just being real has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by Just being real, posted 08-26-2010 6:27 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 227 of 271 (577063)
08-27-2010 2:08 AM
Reply to: Message 220 by Just being real
08-26-2010 6:27 PM


Re: What counts as detection?
quote:
Yes but don't you think that since we are discussing the infinite existing prior to the formation of the finite, that it is just easier to differentiate when we refer to the "universe," by meaning the finite portion of everything, rather than the infinite and the finite combined? If this is a stumbling block for you we do not need to define it this way. I was just trying to keep things easier is all.
Hey, I'm just pointing out that your definition doesn't work with your argument. And if you don't have a problem with that - then you have a problem.
quote:
Well, if we don't try and partly anchor our speculations in some observation, we end up chasing flying spaghetti monsters like my good buddy Dawkins.
By which you mean that if we don't make excuses to rule out possibilities that you don't like we might not reach the conclusion you want ?
quote:
And reaching for the ridiculous like that is not very helpful in these kinds of discussions.
Then I guess that we'd better throw out the idea of an anthropomorphic god that actually takes an interest in the happenings on Earth. That's more ridiculous than anything I've suggested. Or maybe you shouldn't be so quick to call possibilities "ridiculous".
quote:
So based on observation, "something finite" requires an origin from something else.
Does it ? Because there are some problems with that idea...
quote:
But no observation even on a small scale shows how a cycle of anything with finite components can exist in an infinite amount of space or time.
Are you sure of that ? It's certainly possible that our universe has an infinite future and there seems to be no clear reason why it does not.
quote:
This seems to demonstrate my point that no process (regardless of how strong it is) can survive with one of its links being finite.
But what if all the links are infinite ? Then your argument doesn't apply Remember this group of entities is proposed as an alternative to a single self-sustaining infinite entity.
quote:
I am not assuming there was ever a time when there was nothing, I am just saying finite things can not logically occupy infinite space or time.
And infinite things presumably can. So why can't the cyclicly-sustaining group of entities be infinite ?
quote:
Therefore I can only logically conclude that, there must have been a time when only something infinite existed.
And you would be wrong. Because logic doesn't demand that past time is infinite. And if past time is finite you can't conclude that there is anything with an infinite past - which seems to be the only use of "infinite" that you are interested in. (And if you mean "infinite" in any other respect, your whole argument is even less logical).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by Just being real, posted 08-26-2010 6:27 PM Just being real has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by Just being real, posted 08-27-2010 10:47 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 233 of 271 (577159)
08-27-2010 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 231 by Just being real
08-27-2010 10:47 AM


Re: What counts as detection?
quote:
And I completely agree with this statement Paul...so long as no one can come along and give a logical reason to accept such a notion, then the idea would be a nonsensical as the other.
Well you clearly haven't got that far. Even if your argument worked, it doesn't get so far as a hands-off Deist God.
quote:
Well in principle I agree, but in keeping with my screen name here, lets face it... Dawkins just came up with the spaghetti monster to be intentionally ridiculous, in order to mock those who do hold to a belief in a god.
Well aside from the fact that as far as I know Dawkins didn't invent the FSM, we also have the fact that the possibilities you want to reject aren't made up to mock anybody. They're simply serious suggestions that your argument fails to consider. So I don't think that you are acting in keeping with your handle at all.
quote:
Please elaborate.
If past time is finite, then everything must be finite in the only sense your argument seems to use (temporally finite in the pastward direction). Which leads to all sorts of problems - such as everything requiring a cause.
quote:
Well from all that I have read, astronomers and astrophysicists are saying that the evidence points towards the universe having a beginning point and are also saying that it is winding down. This means the universe is finite. By definition, something finite can not occupy infinite space or time. Don't you think that mathematics also seems to strongly support this?
Well you're wrong, because the "winding down" refers to "heat death" (maximal entropy). If the Universe is "open" (and last I heard it probably was) it will go on expanding for ever. It's just that it will reach a point where practically nothing will be happening.
quote:
I agree. It is possible that there is a "group" of entities that are infinite in nature. But they would have to at least operate in a self-sustaining closed loop system that did not require outside stimuli in order to exist. Say for example a trio functioning as one single unit. But at least one "something" infinite must exist in order for anything finite now to exist. Am I sensing your agreement on this point?
No, you're sensing YOUR agreement with what I originally said.
quote:
However in another sense, time is relative to the beholder. When I leave my dog chained up outside for the afternoon, to him its been a whole week where to me it was only a few hours. So we can logically talk about time existing before the big bang because we understand that it is relative to the present. When I say my grand father was born in 1909, I understand that date is relative to my present position in time.
No, that's not what I'm talking about. I am talking about a literal limit to past time. And it could well be that there is no time before the Big Bang.
quote:
So even though we discuss a time before there was time, we understand it is relative to our present, and therefore not at all illogical to do so. So in that sense logic does demand that time be infinite. There will always be one more second further back you can reference relative to where you are now, and there will always be one more second forward you can reference relative to where you are now. So when I say "infinite time," I am meaning relative to the now and my logic then would remain sound don't you think?
Firstly maybe when you talk about "time before time" you don't literally mean it but that is a damn poor way to do logic. Secondly begging the question is not valid logic. Your argument that past time is infinite starts by assuming the conclusion - logic says bad boy, no cookie, go to the back of the class to that one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by Just being real, posted 08-27-2010 10:47 AM Just being real has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by Just being real, posted 08-28-2010 7:06 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 239 of 271 (577389)
08-28-2010 2:23 PM
Reply to: Message 237 by Just being real
08-28-2010 7:06 AM


Re: What counts as detection?
quote:
Perhaps I am reading too much into this, but this comment came off kind of pompous. I'd like to ask you if we couldn't try and keep the tone of our discussion more respectful? Thanks.
Could you please, please try to use logic correctly ? Or at least not claim that logic says things that it plainly does not ?
quote:
Ok...I get it everyone! Dawkins is not the inventor of the term flying spaghetti monster. Is it really that important? But I do think he is the most "prominent" and notable public figure to use the term recently.
By which you mean a single mention in the concluding section of a reasonable length essay. Is it really that important to attach his name to it when we aren't even discussing him or his arguments ?
quote:
But Paul, didn't I already address the fact that I reject those other possibilities for purely lack of observational reasons? If there are no observations to support them, can you please explain what makes them "serious suggestions?"
No, that wasn't all that you were saying and I am quite free to refute the other points as well.
But the lack of observational evidence cuts both ways. We don't have any observations supporting the existence of aself-sustaining infinite being either. In fact we have no observations of anything before the Big Bang (and we can't) - nor do we even know if there was a time before the Big Bang. So we are dealing with speculations without observational support whichever way you cut it.
quote:
I don't see where that conflicts with my conclusion that the universe is finite? If it had a beginning, and will have a "practical" ending, how is that not finite?
It's not finite because it doesn't have a real ending. It just goes on, with almost nothing happening.
quote:
That's your opinion and I respect that, though I disagree. I can only conceive of things in ways that relate to my own experiences and I think most people are the same way. Again even when we judge the age of our faithful dog we tend to do so as it relates to us. I have a dog named Ginger who was born in my house 13 years ago. That makes her around 91 in "people years."
Except of course, we have the real possibility that past time is finite. And it it is then your argument doesn't work at all. And if it isn't then you have the problem that either our universe is infinite in the pastward direction too, or it is embedded in a spacetime that is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by Just being real, posted 08-28-2010 7:06 AM Just being real has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by Just being real, posted 08-29-2010 3:49 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 241 of 271 (577482)
08-29-2010 4:10 AM
Reply to: Message 240 by Just being real
08-29-2010 3:49 AM


Re: What counts as detection?
quote:
Well Paul, if you were just looking for people who all agree with you and think like you then I wouldn't go to a web site entitled "Creation VERSES Evolution" if I were you. The very name implies debate...right? And if so then in a debate you will meet people who you think have really "whacked" logic. But don't you think its more productive to just tell them why you think there logic fails then it is to belittle them or to beg them to think like you? But that's just me...
And if you don't want to be criticised then a little more humility might be in order. Don't brag about logic being on your side when all you do is simply assume that you're right. Triumphailism just begs for deflation,
quote:
Well lets examine that claim and see if its true shall we?
OK.
quote:
Have we always observed that something's origin requires there be something to cause that origin? Yes.
Let us note that it is definitely false that we need a sufficient cause...
quote:
Does this logically mean that something/s always existed in order for something to now exist? Yes.
NO. You've just run into the Problem of Induction. Inductive arguments fall short of logical proofs.
quote:
Have we only observed finite things exist in a finite number? Yes.
Unfortunately our observations apply only to finite space and time. Infinite space would be expected to contain infinite matter and infinite time could certainly accommodate an infinite succession.
quote:
Therefore must the thing/s that always existed be infinite? Yes.
False. If time is finite then we do not need to invoke infinite beings.
quote:
If the infinite thing/s ever existed when no finite things existed, must it/they be self-sustaining (or at least group sustaining)? Yes.
And that includes the very point you were trying to reject. Thus you admit that you have no observations which let you reject a group that mutually sustain each other in favour of a single self--sustaining entity. So now we've looked and found that you were wrong we can move on from this point.
quote:
Please feel free to demonstrate any observations coupled with logical conclusions that support a bubble or multi-universe theory.
I don't have time to read up on a lot of cosmology just now, but let me point out that it seems to be taken seriously among cosmologists who would be a lot more familiar with the evidence than either of us. Also, if you want our universe to be really finite and have an infinite past, you actually need what you call the "bubble universe" to be true.
quote:
It's not finite because it doesn't have a real ending. It just goes on, with almost nothing happening.
FINITE: Finite Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com
1.having bounds or limits; not infinite; measurable.
2.Mathematics . a.(of a set of elements) capable of being completely counted. b.not infinite or infinitesimal. c.not zero.
3.subject to limitations or conditions, as of space, time, circumstances, or the laws of nature: MAN'S FINITE EXISTENCE on earth.
Which refers to death, which as we know is the end of the person. The universe is not a person, nor actually alive so clearly that doesn't apply.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by Just being real, posted 08-29-2010 3:49 AM Just being real has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by Just being real, posted 08-29-2010 11:45 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 244 of 271 (577515)
08-29-2010 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 243 by Just being real
08-29-2010 11:45 AM


Re: What counts as detection?
quote:
Please note that the key word in my phrase is "observed." I point this out because even though you may think it is theoretically possible for something to originate without a cause, the question is have we only observed caused effects? Just saying this is false does not make it so.
At this point I have to state that you do not understand the point that you are replying to. The point is a caveat to your argument and notes that we do not need a sufficient cause i.e. a cause which entirely explains the effect.
quote:
Again I had stated that I reject your other possibilities based on the lack of observation. In science observation is paramount. Note that my conclusion is acceptable to me because its based on observation with logic together.
But your point is NOT logical. If the reason why we only observe a finite number of things is because our observation is restricted to finite space and time we CANNOT validly extrapolate those observations to either infinite space or infinite time. (Indeed since space is never entirely empty we know that we cannot validly extend it to infinite space).
quote:
Well I'm sorry you feel that way Paul. If you are going to reject a whole belief system based on the off chance that some of the other "smart guys" guesses are right, don't you think you should familiarize yourself with it just a little?
Of course I am NOT rejecting an entire worldview on that basis. I am REFUSING to reject a possibility on the grounds that the experts consider it plausible. That is a very different matter.
quote:
In your last post you accused me of being not very humble and coming across kind of superior. I am sorry if my demeanor comes off that way. But I gotta ask; say you see a man a few hundred yards away walking with a cane and dark sunglasses towards a huge cliff. If you believe he is blind and about to fall, just what tone should you use when you cry out, "STOP...CLIFF!!!"???
But you aren't doing any such thing. Instead you are offering flawed arguments, based on material you clearly don't understand. If your intent is to convince then you really really need to provide good arguments instead of trying to pass off your opinions as truths of logic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by Just being real, posted 08-29-2010 11:45 AM Just being real has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by Just being real, posted 08-30-2010 9:03 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 249 of 271 (577755)
08-30-2010 9:44 AM
Reply to: Message 246 by Just being real
08-30-2010 9:03 AM


Re: What counts as detection?
quote:
And "at this point" I find it necessary to clarify exactly what we are both saying here. I am saying that the only things we have with which to formulate conclusions, about the origin of the universe, is what we have observed and experienced. On the other hand you seem to be saying that nothing we have experienced or observed has any baring on the subject, and therefore "anything goes." (Just so long as its not God) "But that's OK because other smart people really support it?" Is that everything in a nut shell?
No, that's not it. That's not it at all. As you've already admitted your argument doesn't get you to God or anywhere near. And you haven't even gotten to the really difficult parts. If your argument was any good I'd have had no problem accepting it. However it is full of problems and errors and holes. Because you have neither a good handle on the current state of the relevant science, nor logical reasoning nor even Christian apologetics.
for instance you refuse to accept that time could be finite, because your argument requires that past time is infinite. But I could point you to a web page where a Christian using "experience and observation" argues that past time must be FINITE. Because that is what the argument HE likes happens to require. (Me, I can see that you're both wrong - neither option helps).
The fact is that your argument - even the section you've presented here doesn't work. If it did I'd have accepted it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by Just being real, posted 08-30-2010 9:03 AM Just being real has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by Just being real, posted 08-31-2010 5:26 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 254 of 271 (577936)
08-31-2010 6:21 AM
Reply to: Message 253 by Just being real
08-31-2010 5:26 AM


Re: What counts as detection?
quote:
Well come on with it then Paul, lets here the major holes with an observation based explanation that refutes it. I can take criticism if its backed by something more than just saying "No, No, No," and wagging your finger.
What's wrong with the ones I've already pointed out ? For instance your assumption that the universe has a finite future, when in fact the matter is not settled and last I heard it leans the other way ?
Or how about the illogic in your argument that since we, as finite creatures observing a finite portion of space and time can only see a finite number of entities we should assume that the total number of entities that have ever existed is also finite, even given infinite time ? You cannot validly assume that our limitations limit reality.
And in fact we do have observations that would suggest otherwise. We know that the vacuum is not empty. Instead it is a sea of particles flickering in and out of existence. If we extend this observation into infinite time, does it not follow that there must have been an infinite number of finite entities ?
quote:
So your saying that both time being infinite or finite are wrong? Interesting. So are they wrong at the same time or is one only wrong at a time depending on which suits your argument?
I am saying disagreeing with your opinion is not the same as rejecting God. Despite your attempts to paint it that way.
We can add that in fact that we do not know if time is finite or infinite - so relying on either would be a fault in your argument. We can further add that neither option in fact offers any help to your argument.
quote:
What if I were to suggest that in reality time itself is nothing but an illusion invented by humans? Its nothing. Time does not really exist. It is a man made invention to measure passage of space between events. You can go to china, but you can’t go to a second ago. That second was merely our way of expressing the passing of an event. We have chosen to express it with man made increments called seconds. We can not travel back and view past events as they are happening, because they are not happening, but rather have already happened. We may be able to record current events and view a video recording of that event in the future, and we may feel like we are in the past, but actually being there when it happened is not possible.
Well the first thing I would ask you is how is this relevant ? How does it help your argument ? If time does not really exist then nothing can be temporally infinite, yet your whole argument rests on asserting that there must be a temporally infinite being. You cannot have a temporally infinite being unless time is both real and infinite.
quote:
So when I say, "What existed before the universe?" I am talking about existence of something that time has no meaning to. If matter did not exist then there was no time, but that does not mean an infinite entity or entities could not be self existent. Time has no relevance to the argument. The relevant point is that finite matter now exists and no observations ever made can explain its existence without invoking an infinite source.
Well to point out the holes in the reasoning here:
1) You are arguing now that time is finite, at least in the pastward direction. But an infinite past was the only aspect of infinity that you have argued FOR. So now we have no need to invoke an infinite being in any respect.
2) Your argument that time depends on matter is a mere assertion (and in fact false, since matter did not exist in the very earliest stages of the universe). It is far better to treat time as a dimension (like length and width) as physics does. Or alternatively we can relate time to change. You can argue that a completely unchanging entity is "timeless" in some sense. However, by definition such an entity can do nothing (since doing anything would be a change). That doesn't seem to offer any help to you, either.
3) You have offered no sound argument for an infinite source and therefore you cannot rule out a finite source.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by Just being real, posted 08-31-2010 5:26 AM Just being real has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by Just being real, posted 09-02-2010 6:28 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 257 of 271 (578637)
09-02-2010 7:00 AM
Reply to: Message 256 by Just being real
09-02-2010 6:28 AM


Re: What counts as detection?
quote:
I didn't realize it was an assumption Paul. Because I got my information from news sources that interviewed some real heavy weights in the cosmology field. NewScientist reported that observations by NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP), which was launched in 2001, of the large scale microwave background ripples did not match up at all with the prediction model of an infinite universe (spatially). Time magazine reported that the question has been once and for all settled... that the universe will fizzle out in a cold icy death. Two esteemed sources which say that the universe is both finite in size as well as life.
So you had one source that was irrelevant and another which you misunderstood. Might I suggest taking a little more care ?
quote:
This is not illogical Paul, its pure mathematics.
Complete and utter nonsense.
quote:
Mathematically nothing finite can exist infinitely apart from an infinite source. Think about all attempts to make a "Perpetual Motion" machine. That is to say some sort of machine that requires no outside source to keep it in motion. See Carnot's second law of thermodynamics. If you put 1 unit of energy into a machine, you MUST get less than that unit back out of it while some is lost. Laws of thermodynamics state this, and it has been proven to be true. This law effects everything finite. You can not get an equal or greater amount of energy out than what was put in. So in any system even one that produces "universes" if the originator is finite and the product is finite, you must eventually see a death or end to the entire finite system.
So lets deal with the problems.
Firstly this is a completely different argument which fails to even address the point.
Secondly it is NOT a mathematical argument (and it contains no mathematics at all!).
Thirdly if you assume an infinite past (as you do) you need to explain why we have not already reached the state of maximum entropy. Good luck doing that without violating the Second Law of Thermodynamics or resorting to special pleading. (And yes, invoking an infinite energy source does amount to throwing out thermodynamics)
quote:
First, note that you made the giant leap from a "sea" of particles to "infinite" particles.
Wrong as usual. The "jump" is justified by the assumption of infinite past time. If there were even a finitely small probability of a virtual particle coming into existence at each moment in time the total would be infinite, given infinite time. (Hint, what do you get if you multiply a finite number greater than zero by infinity ?)
quote:
Second, neither the big bang nor expansion theory postulates preexisting space or vacuum. Hence there would have been no place for virtual particles to fluctuate.
Now you are departing from logic again. Your ability to imagine conditions under which your assertions could be true does not make them true. And in this case you would have to assume that there was only a finite amount of the infinite past in which there was any space at all. That's a pretty big assumption, even without the fact that space and time are linked.
quote:
Third, virtual particles, if real, form as matter and antimatter in equal amounts. However our universe appears to consist almost entirely of ordinary matter. Antimatter is distinctly rare.
Which is completely irrelevant to the point. Remember your argument was that there COULD NOT be an infinite number of finite things. How does the asymmetry of matter and antimatter in our universe relate to that claim (which goes beyond our universe) ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by Just being real, posted 09-02-2010 6:28 AM Just being real has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by cavediver, posted 09-04-2010 4:17 PM PaulK has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024