Re-Problems With The Big Bang Theory

A complex outcome has to have a complex foundation. Else it ceases becoming scientific, mathematical or logical, and emulates magic, occultism, sorcery and myth [aka random].

No one can say. But it is evident that there is a direction, from the pov everything appears to operate on an intelligent system, with measurable equations and awesome engineerings. It seems all this cannot be occuring for no reason.

Define infinity - then debate it. There is no evidence of infinity anywhere. The subsequent issue remains that many are fearful of confronting a finite universe, and should question themselves: namely, what are the impacts when the universe is 100% finite.Any discussion outside this factor is a runaway, evasive fantasy which will yield nothing, or worse - take mankind on the wrong path.

Science is an explanation how things work - nothing more. Science is not what makes things work, but explains only those works which are already subsisting - well prior to the science phrase and faculty being coined.Once we know how something works - the focus must go elsewhere - if it stops only at the instruction manual, it becomes self negating and causes only a barrier to further thought elevation.Analogy: we find a car on Mars. We are clever and understand how the car works, and thus explain it in mathematical and scientific terms. We then make a car manual, showing how the car works and functions. But is his where we stop - is the car manual the end all diety of everything? I think not.

quote:

---

I asked this question upthread, but you didn't give a very useful answer -- especially in light of your unsupported subsequent statements concerning a "100% finite" universe.

---

There is only one factor which defines and determines infinity, and it is 'CHANGE'. Anything subject to change is not infinite. Amazingly, this factor is declared in the source which first declared the universe is finite, and that it had a BEGINNING. Whatever changes something is transcendent of it. There is nothing we know or imagine, which can claim to be changeless; thus nothing in the uni can be infinite. This is 100% science and logic: only a force which is transcendent of all in the universe, can be capable of being infinite, and if that force was subject to change, it could not be transcendent of the universe.

quote:

---

So here is the question again: If the universe is finite, where is it going to go?

---

If you are referring to the factor of space, IMHO space is a post-uni product: the uni is not going where the space leads it, because the space is post-uni; instead, the space is occuring where and when it is directed.If you are referring to the directional philosophical factor of where the uni is going - my answer would be it is in a state of ever changing; namely, expansion/enlargement/growth is a change of state.

quote:

---

There is nothing in what you have written that convinces me that the universe had a specific beginning, or that it will not either repeat the Big Bang or continue expending indefinitely.

---

Ok, lets agree what factors, if any, can be convincing the uni or anything else, is finite or infinite. This is an appropriate pursuit, because we cannot physically go check every nook and cranny of the universe - so we have to do this academically and logically. IOW, we need a criteria for infinity. I list the following factors:1. NO CHANGES.2. There is nothing we know or can imagine as being infinite - thus this is an anomoly in the universe.3. If something is expanding, it represents a change of state, namely that it was not infinite 10 seconds ago. Thus we cannot add or subtract to or from an infinite.4. Infinite transcends finite; thus the universe cannot contain what is infinite or what transcends it: a measure of a 100 light years cannot contain an infinite number of light years.5. Everything has a beginning and an end, and all such come under finite.6. If something has an end - it must have a beginning. This is proven by all which is universe contained.7. A change of state is not a back-door to infinity, but a negation of infinity; the change of states incur loss in each change, and there is no free energy.8. 'NOTHINGNESS', while a difficult subject to contemplate or remove from the menu, cannot be proposed as an infinite; nothingness cannot be evidenced in the universe, and does not represent a proof or negation of infinity. Nothingness, if such exists or is possible, can only represent a pre-uni, or non-uni factor, devoid of anything post-uni. If anything, if a nothingness premise can apply or be possible, it only sustains and proves the finite universe premise.9. There must be a factor or treshold, which seperates finite from infinite, because these two factors are different in kind than degree.10. There must be something which connects the finite with the infinite, based on the premise one is the result of the other; and one is precedent and transcendent of the other. This does not signify a continuation thread, because such would only point to a cyclical, as opposed a first and second format - and a cyclical mode is always a proof it is the wrong path. By the process of elimination, the 'something from nothing' becomes vindicated, and the only factor which negates the cyclical.Those are the prime factors which evidence the universe is finite, while there is not a single shred of evidence the uni is infinite, or that it can be so via any premise whatsoever.The compelling factor here is, why the pursuit of an infinite universe, in contradiction of all scientific and logical deliberation - does a finite universe cause a host of problems for some, and how does it impact premises held of an infinite VS a finite universe? IMHO, science has to subscribe to a path away from the finite, because it points to creationism, and thus brings science to a stand still brick wall, in effect negating science after a certain point. So science must deal only with the post-uni scenario, and cannot indulge in origins of any kind and on any level - namely science refers to the B to Z only; while origins can only be vested outside of science, being pre-uni and thus pre-science. Scientifically and logically, there is no alternative to the 'something from nothing' premise, whether this be vested in creationism, theology or any other path one sees as its underlying, ultimate conclusion. This makes genesis a most scientific treatise.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

quote:

---

A remarkable picture began to take shape in the two physicists’ minds. A sheet of paper blowing in the wind is a kind of two-dimensional membrane tumbling through our three-dimensional world. For Steinhardt and Turok, our entire universe is just one sheet, or 3-D brane, moving through a four-dimensional background called “the bulk.” Our brane is not the only one; there are others moving through the bulk as well. Just as two sheets of paper could be blown together in a storm, different 3-D branes could collide within the bulk.

---

Its hardly a remarkable picture. This is a non-confronting, deflection of the issue, and only moves the goal post further. It assumes that there is a sheet [analogy] which always existed, and that this had abilities to result in the universal structures of and by itself - without even regarding any external impacts. No reasonings is given for this premise - nor can there be one, thus the leap.This assumption collapses with the finite premise, as does the MV, String & Brane concepts. There is absolutely no basis for the assumption of an original sheet, nor that it was infinitely existent, nor that there were or are parallel realms [this is solely based on unproven, non-scientific academics], or that this can somehow foster the universe. It is based on nothing, while being a contradiction of every sciences available to us. Science is about defining how things work - not to say, here it is - it was always here.What paper blowing in the wind? - there was no wind and no first paper: this just assumes a prevailing construct, and all we have here is a 'WHAT IF?' guessing, with no foundation whatsoever - its like lets try this shape and see if it fits the jigsaw - and never mind where the piece came from - it was always there and it fits exactly. This is not science.Basically, it is saying that a car is not a construct of a human impacting in its making, but that the car evolved from prototype, infinitely existing car material, thus the car is infinite. But could that car emerge without an external impact - therein is the rub!?

quote:

---

In a hotel with a finite number of rooms, it is clear that once it is full, no more guests can be accommodated. Now, imagine a hotel with an infinite number of rooms. One might assume that the same problem will arise when a new guest comes along and all the rooms are occupied. However, in an infinite hotel, the situations "every room is occupied" and "no more guests can be accommodated" do not turn out to be equivalent. There is a way to solve the problem: if you move the guest occupying room 1 to room 2, the guest occupying room 2 to room 3, etc., you can fit the newcomer into room 1.

---

This is a slight of hand casino science - it is very reminiscent of a surface having no centre. The definition of infinite = no changes; and moving 1 to 2 represents a change.You cannot pose an academic premise to evidence reality - you have to also walk on the physical earth. I won't be surprised if you cannot offer anything in reality. But seriously!

quote:

---

Don't tell me you're one of those 'there must a purpose' people.

---

Of coz, I don't mean a purpose from a belief pov. A purpose and a complex construct are two different things; the latter can subsist w/o the former - namely with no purpose but to exhibit a complex structure, going nowhere and for no reason.However, by reductionism, if we consider the human body - or a pineapple or a car, these do represent a purpose in their complexities, although this is limited to a short period of existence, and we have no clue what happens after this point. But upto that point, we have every reason to believe that all functions are purposeful, whether voluntary or involuntary - in the macro and micro realms. Everything in the universe thus appears purposeful to its surrounds, and everything appears intergrated in a critical mode. There is no waste or superfluous factors - the design takes the shortest route between two points, and utilises everything of its attributes purposefully, down to the last quark colors: why should we assume all existence is purposeless?That we do not know what happens after our existence, does not mean there is no purpose - it means we do not know, and that everything does has a purpose. IOW, we cannot assume that we 'know' what lies beyond, and thus there is no purpose. This is not a philosophical, but a manifest scientific and logical conclusion. Although we don't know - the odds of everything says there would/should be a purpose - else we contradict everything which is manifest.

The source which first declared the universe as finite. But seriously, it is also correct, when examined. When one thing changes another - the changer has greater power than the changee. It is also the only factor which cannot be seen in the finite realm.

quote:

---

Science is trying to determine if there was a creation event or not.

---

The BB is one of science's acknowledgement of such an event - this is the genesis version of science. It is hardly about an event occuring, because we have an on-going event [a happening], and the issue is only how/when/why. If you see a small stream, which becomes a large river and then an ocean, you cannot question if an event occured, only how; this is the same situation with the expanding universe.

quote:

---

The realization that there are other dimensions may be a large step in understanding other beings or not. Understanding a 5th dimension may lead us to discovery of a 6th dimension and so on.

---

No impact - these dimensions are factored in the equation; its not like the universe emerged seperately from or out of other dimensions, neither would it make any difference if that in fact was the case: a dimension is only a matrix like a space bed - at best it can contain a program or alligning element. Water is a dimension on this planet - as much as time.We know that dogs cannot see rainbows because they are color blind: does it mean rainbows [a hiiden dimension for dogs] do not exist - or that color blind dogs are part of this equation? In the early days, man did know about time - we probably don't yet know of other dimensions - but this knowledge will come, and the universe question will still hover.

quote:

---

The idea is rather difficult to grasp but humanity can't simply say "this was all created" because of the fact that we have Science. So, actually, thinking of a 5th dimension is Scientific because it is not supernatural it is natural.

---

All science can do is give us explanations of what is a pre-science and pre-universe design. We can use that knowledge to emulate designs which will assist us advance.So no doubt there was an event which resulted in the universe, and we see the effects as on-going; whether this is a BB type or genesis type is an issue which has not yet been determined by science - which means that genesis was right as far as the event was concerned, and only the detail of that event is in question.It is also blatant that an event occured on this planet 6000 years ago - because all paths and factors point there and within that circle, Eg: speech, writings, populations, mental prowess, names of humans, wars, kings, houses, music, songs, dieties, religions, the wheel, history, etc, etc, etc. Here, genesis cannot be taken lightly - the last 100 years have seen great efforts to prove otherwise, and all we have are lab de-constructed stray imprints of alledged, assumed, and heavy-handed interpretations of cave scratchings, fireplaces, colored beads - appearing once or twice throughout the planet, with no transit imprints of graduations, and all much too close to the genesis datings. These hardly are conclusive.The issue cannot go forward unless the universe status is agreed upon: that it is finite. There is nothing to know if this is rejected, because all and any answers can be put on the table, and none can be questioned. It ceases becoming science anymore, and we can always say space or any other factor, was always there and it happened all on its own. Here, genesis triumphs - it declares which universe it is discussing up-front: one which had a BEGINNING.

quote:

---

Who declared it as finite and where did they say this equated to no change?

---

Waky, waky."IN THE BEGINNING THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH WAS CREATED""I AM THE LORD - I HAVE NOT CHANGED"These verses are deceptively simple, but are made in a mode suitable for all generations of mankind. Today, we see the blatant, deep science embedded therein: they become 100% science when read scientifically. Do you think these were meaningless, superfluous verses - when they are couched in the same context of the universe origin?

What has genesis to do with the christian bible? A: zilch.

Better if you responded to specific factors posited: you did not do that. Else the one who is religiously paranoid is not myself. I am hardly blinded by religion - I gave critical and specific factors why the 6000 date is a stand-out one; nothing to do with any religion but hisorical factors.

I can't see how the status of finite or infinite can be off topic here - the BBT has to be vested in one of the two options, and I have made my choice, giving a host of reasons and reasonings why. You have given nothing to incline with either position.One cannot debate the universe origins without knowing which universe they are debating - a finite or infinite one. These two universes do not display the same traits.