Re-Problems With The Big Bang Theory

Forget the universe for one moment. Lets concentrate on your assertion that infinite = unchanging. An end is always a change but not all changes are ends.
This is the same format as the statement -
All trees are plants. However not all plants are trees.
Which is obviously true.
Think about it.Your logic regarding infinite = unchanging is obviously wrong.
There are other forms of change than ends. Therefore the mere fact that something is unending does not necessarily equate to it being unchanging.Does it?

IMJ, if I say to you that I am Vladimir and i have not changed, would that mean that i am infinite? Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

This requires more than a mocking response. The factor of change must be understood for what it represents in its essence. One can change dough into bread - which is a change of state, whereby both survive in some form. It does not make you a rocket scientist for pointing this out - so obviously, there is a deeper treshold operative with the real essential change I am referring to.The change which constitutes infinity is in its core paradigm levels, alligned with the act of change, rather than the result or level of the change. Think of change as in a power; the causation factor rather than the effects factor. If john doe is changed by vladimir - than there is no more john doe, while john doe cannot perform the same feat with vladimir; meaning this is not about a change of state.The moon and the sun incur changes, in temperatures and in their life spans - these are not and never be infinite - because they are interacting with other changing products. Now consider that the moon and the sun cannot be effected by temperatures or death: this is infinite - because a finite cannot change the infinite.This is the true meaning of "I DO NOT CHANGE" - it is a scientific, mathematical and consciousness technical term, and must be understood that way; it is a deceptively simple phrase, alligned and contexted with where did the creator come from and what is the origins of creation. It is contextually talking about infinity. Imagine if you asked your teacher who created the universe and who created the creator - and the answer was, "THE CREATOR IS NOT SUBJECT TO CHANGE". Here, there is only one meaning: NOTHING WHATSOEVER CAN EFFECT THE CREATOR. That is the kind of change this refers to. It is 100% logic and deep science: infinity can only be that which cannot be effected by anything finite - else it cannot ever be infinite - it would have been effected 10 seconds ago?

"The creator is not subject to change" is not equal to "I have not changed". I can say about myself that I have not changed, but could not say that I am not subject to change. If you twist the words in the bible good enough, you could make them mean anything you want. Like "I am your lord and I have not changed" meaning i am your god and i have not been replaced by the gods of big white sharks.

What you seem to be talking about here is increasing entropy.
A source of useful energy will indeed 'change' such that equilibrium of the entire system is reached in time.However even at thermodynamic equilibrium a system is not static and 'unchanging' in other respects. Particles continue to move etc. etc.Your assertion that infinite = unchanging remains unfounded.

I hope this is still on topic, at least it is BB related. The problem I see with the responses are that the issue is confused and reduced to the elementary and unrelated.A change can be seen as a state of change, as in its common usage - as in liquid to gas, etc. But there is surely another level of change which is not grasped here, namely the fundamental factor of change as in its essence and totality. Here, the change of a mouse into a rabbit may be seen as a change to another state - but think of changing mouse per se into rabbits per se - so mouse per se does not exist anymore: thus we can say the mouse is not infinite, and the rabbit can be infinite subject to not being changeable [effected] by anything else whatsoever. This is a different kind of change from a state of change - here, the term change is pushed to its ultimate and technical treshold, because this is what a change technically means, but not so meant in every day usage.Now also think of a withstanding of change. What if the mouse cannot be turned into a rabbit? - what if nothing in the universe can change [effect] that mouse in any way whatsoever - not even by a zillion supernova atomic blasts, or by time unlimited? This is another form of non-changeability. Also note, such does not exist in this finite universe.I am referring to change and non-change other than a change of states. In actual terms, a change represents any and all of an effectation; a loss; a replacement; a destruction; a displacement; a diminishing; a weakness; an overpowering; a transcendence; a choiceless causation; etc. This is not your ordinary change of state from blue to green, or from hot to cold, or from mouse to rabbit.The point is, if something is subject to being changed, it eventually cannot be said to be ever-lasting or infinite; whereas its contrasting condition is that if something cannot be changed - it can be everlasting and infinite. And further, the change factor is indispensible and singularly encumbent in the premise of infinity. By subsequence, we MUST conclude that only the change factor rules here: no infinity with change; infinity only where no change is possible.There is also no mistake or typo in the change declared in the OT. The term infinity, or even this concept, was not yet coined 1000's of years ago, thus the term change is correctly employed - but it has a different application when read today. However, I don't wish to go to theology here to impress the uninitiated. The point is to examine the issue from a science pov, and this is vindicated when examined correctly.

I agree. Why? Purposeful? or adaptive? Purposeful is theological, don't try to sneak that one by... Theological POV, there is no design. Because it does this without consciousness. It is part of the adaptive qualities in nature. If you want to see that as a 'purpose' then ok, but a purpose to what? And to satisfy what exactlly? No it would just mean that we don't know, period, no purpose required.On the other hand I would agrue that we do know exactlly what happens when you die, we've studied the decomposition of organisms enough to know the process after death. Anything outside of the physical is NEVER gonna be known, so imagine away, no one will ever be able to prove you wrong. Heaven, Valhala, a Paradise full of virgins etc., its all free for the believing.

---

All great truths begin as blasphemiesI smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your fuckin' mouth.

IAJ,
Are you saying that if the Universe changes then it is no longer an infinte Universe because it chahged from its original state? IOW, whatever it was,(the Universe), could have been infinte but, since it changed('IT' being the Universe in its original state), by definition is no longer infinte?If this is your position?I believe the concept however, is that the Universe is finite but, space is infinite...As I understand it.

---

All great truths begin as blasphemiesI smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your fuckin' mouth.

Straggler,I think we are all conceptualizing it differently.I believe IAJ means, and if im wrong please correct me IAJ, simply that a car can be infinte but, if you scrap the metal, melt it all down and turn it into a thin piece of metal, even though the material remains, you no longer have an infinite car, you still have the metal though. Which is where I would place my understanding of it, perhaps like you Straggler, in saying that if the material remains then some aspect of it is infinite.

---

All great truths begin as blasphemiesI smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your fuckin' mouth.

Frankly, as usual, I have no real idea what IAJ is on about at root. I just think his base assertion is flawed.He has repeatedly asserted that infinite = unchanging.
He seems to have derived this view from some fairly unique interpretations of random bits of biblical script. Based on this he also seems to think that the concept of an infinite universe is somehow an anti God derived philosophical position on the part of science. All I am saying is that the concepts of infinite and unchanging do not necessarily always go together in the way that he is asserting based on his biblical cherry picking.If you can work out IAJ's overall meaning you are a better man than I. My advice, if you are going to debate IAJ, is to closely examine the basis of his arguments as he makes massive extrapolations from seemingly innocent and minor assertions.He also has a very unique take on things and it is easy to get lost in the world of IAJ......(see the thread spherical issues where IAJ argued for 300 posts that the surface of a sphere has a centre!!!)

I agree. Honestly it was a long shot on my part to attempt an understanding of his logic. LOLOLOLOLOL...I do recall reading that. I think he debates himself most of the time

---

All great truths begin as blasphemiesI smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your fuckin' mouth.

You have asserted that infinite = unchanging.I asked you to provide your source for this and/or to justify it. That is how this conversation started.You then pull out some very short, very vague and deeply open to interpretation biblical quotations to justify your assertion.You then proceed to extrapolate this by redefining what 'change' means to suit your very individual interpretation.You have no basis for your assertion. Not even a biblical one. Your assertion that infinite = unchanging is flawed, unjustified and uniquely your own.You are basically making it up as you go along.

quote:

---

IAJ,
Are you saying that if the Universe changes then it is no longer an infinte Universe because it chahged from its original state? IOW, whatever it was,(the Universe), could have been infinte but, since it changed('IT' being the Universe in its original state), by definition is no longer infinte?
If this is your position?

---

No, not quite and not at all, eventually. I guess I can't express this adequately as not even any of you intels can understand me. Your example is still a change of state, in layers. My change is about being effected in any manner, and no-change is about not being effected in any manner. Full on total and period. One reason this becomes difficult to analogise is there is no such example in the universe - which in a sense affirms the premise.

quote:

---

I believe the concept however, is that the Universe is finite but, space is infinite...As I understand it.

---

That's impossible, aside being totally unscientific. An infinite cannot be contained in a finite. Is this still a science thread?

quote:

---

Purposeful? or adaptive? Purposeful is theological, don't try to sneak that one by...

---

No such thing as theology when it comes to universe origins. There is only science and genesis. And there is no alternative to creationism - from a scientific and mathematical pov. The dif between purposeful and adaptive is the latter does not go as far as the former, and that science becomes very desperate when reduced to the semantical. There is purpose with pineapples - and adaptation is a belated follow-on process. This usually becomes a cyclical arguement - meaning you cannot assume your right.

quote:

---

You have no basis for your assertion. Not even a biblical one. Your assertion that infinite = unchanging is flawed, unjustified and uniquely your own.

---

The reverse is the case. You have no basis for disproving anything subject to change can be infinite. There is nothing in the universe which is infinite nor which can withstand change.Sure, the concept comes from genesis - which does not mean its unscientific - else I would not propose it. An infinite universe also comes from the same source, so does the 24-hour day, the oldest and most accurate calendar in existence, as well as the first alphabetical books. 100% scientific stuff - well before the word was invented.