25 May 11
2 edits
Originally posted by epiphinehasThe flying spaghetti monster caused it, I say the FSM was uncaused by decree.
(1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause
(2) The universe began to exist
(3) Therefore, the universe has a cause
Discuss...
I'm not seeing what could you possibly hope to accomplish with this argument. 😕
Also I could posit an eternal multiverse whereby all bets are off with respect to talk of necessary causation and such.
25 May 11
1 edit
Originally posted by Agerg...I could posit an eternal multiverse whereby all bets are off with respect to talk of necessary causation and such.
The flying spaghetti monster caused it, I say the FSM was uncaused by decree.
I'm not seeing what could you possibly hope to accomplish with this argument. 😕
Also I could posit an eternal multiverse whereby all bets are off with respect to talk of necessary causation and such.
The problems with that scenario: (1) scientific evidence overwhelmingly corroborates the Standard Big Bang Model of the universe, (2) lack of evidence corroborating the various multiverse models, (3) a past eternal universe is philosophically and scientifically untenable.
25 May 11
3 edits
Originally posted by epiphinehasBut
[b]...I could posit an eternal multiverse whereby all bets are off with respect to talk of necessary causation and such.
The problems with that scenario: (1) scientific evidence overwhelmingly corroborates the Standard Big Bang Model of the universe, (2) lack of evidence corroborating the various multiverse models, (3) a past eternal universe is philosophically and scientifically untenable.[/b]
1) The big bang is not imcompatible with the assertion that this universe was spawned from one of infinitely many tendrils of an eternal multiverse
2) I don't assert such a thing does exist - I merely provide it as a counter assertion when faced with "God necessarily caused this universe to exist" It suffices that it be not a contradictory proposition.
3) If this is relevant, and has not been covered in my response to (1), would you please elaborate?
I like your new avatar btw.
25 May 11
Originally posted by Agerg1) The big bang is not imcompatible with the assertion that this universe was spawned from one of infinitely many tendrils of an eternal multiverse
But
1) The big bang is not imcompatible with the assertion that this universe was spawned from one of infinitely many tendrils of an eternal multiverse
2) I don't assert such a thing does exist - I merely provide it as a counter assertion when faced with "God necessarily caused this universe to exist" It suffices that it be not a contradictory proposition.
...[text shortened]... een covered in my response to (1), would you please elaborate?
I like your new avatar btw.
You are referring to the Vacuum Fluctuation Model, which didn't outlive the 1980's. The problem with this model that proved fatal was its incoherency: (1) given infinite past time, every point in the infinite vacuum will have spawned a baby universe (the universes colliding and coalescing with each other—this even if the universes within that vacuum occurred an infinite distance apart), (2) given infinite past time, we should be observing an infinitely old universe, not the relatively young one we do observe.
2) I don't assert such a thing does exist - I merely provide it as a counter assertion when faced with "God necessarily caused this universe to exist" It suffices that it be not a contradictory proposition.
It doesn't suffice to provide a counter assertion that is incoherent, ad hoc, lacking of any corroborating scientific evidence, as well as being philosophically untenable—because it's not a viable option. You're going to have to do better than that to overthrow the Standard Big Bang Model and explain away the absolute beginning of space-time it predicts.
I like your new avatar btw.
Thanks! The closest bolt of lightning I ever caught on camera...
25 May 11
1 edit
Originally posted by Agerg3) If this is relevant, and has not been covered in my response to (1), would you please elaborate?
But
1) The big bang is not imcompatible with the assertion that this universe was spawned from one of infinitely many tendrils of an eternal multiverse
2) I don't assert such a thing does exist - I merely provide it as a counter assertion when faced with "God necessarily caused this universe to exist" It suffices that it be not a contradictory proposition.
...[text shortened]... een covered in my response to (1), would you please elaborate?
I like your new avatar btw.
(1) An infinite past universe is philosophically untenable because an actual infinite number of things is impossible.
(2) Neither is an infinite past universe supported by scientific evidence: (a) the Standard Big Bang Model, and (b) the implications of the second law of thermodynamics.
25 May 11
Originally posted by epiphinehas1. anthing that becomes manifest has a cause yes. The unmanifested entities have no cause because they are eternal. They can manifest bodies for themselves and explore lower dimensions but essentiallt they are unmanifested and without a cause.
(1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause
(2) The universe began to exist
(3) Therefore, the universe has a cause
Discuss...
2. In this part of the almost infinite thing we call the unverse there was a big bang which is when our part of the universe came into existence. It's just so huge that we think thw whole universe came into existence with the BB however it was only one part of it
3. cause and effect are obserbvable in all manifested things. From solid inert objects to less tangible "things" like relationships,etc.
25 May 11
Originally posted by karoly aczel2. In this part of the almost infinite thing we call the unverse there was a big bang which is when our part of the universe came into existence. It's just so huge that we think thw whole universe came into existence with the BB however it was only one part of it
1. anthing that becomes manifest has a cause yes. The unmanifested entities have no cause because they are eternal. They can manifest bodies for themselves and explore lower dimensions but essentiallt they are unmanifested and without a cause.
2. In this part of the almost infinite thing we call the unverse there was a big bang which is when our part ...[text shortened]... manifested things. From solid inert objects to less tangible "things" like relationships,etc.
It sounds like you are positing a multiverse, too. If so, can you explain your thinking in more detail?
25 May 11
7 edits
Originally posted by epiphinehasYou are referring to the Vacuum Fluctuation Model, which didn't outlive the 1980's. The problem with this model that proved fatal was its incoherency: (1) given infinite past time, every point in the infinite vacuum will have spawned a baby universe (the universes colliding and coalescing with each other—this even if the universes within that vacuum occurred an infinite distance apart)
[b]1) The big bang is not imcompatible with the assertion that this universe was spawned from one of infinitely many tendrils of an eternal multiverse
You are referring to the Vacuum Fluctuation Model, which didn't outlive the 1980's. The problem with this model that proved fatal was its incoherency: (1) given infinite past time, every point in t new avatar btw.[/b]
Thanks! The closest bolt of lightning I ever caught on camera...[/b]
I'm not familiar with the vacuum fluctuation model (I'm not a phycisist) and can't fit the wikipedia account to the ideas I'm thinking about. But anyway addressing a later point; there are different sizes of infinity - the argument that there must exist at least one point where one or more universes spawned by a multiverse must intersect is neither a necessary conclusion of infinite `time' (whatever it means to talk of temporality `outside' our universe), nor do I see, without any experience or insight into this phenomenon, why this should destroy such a proposition.
I'm more interested however in discussing why you think that there must necessarily be a collision...perhaps the cardinality of infinity when we talk about an infinite multiiverse is not big enough that such collisions should reasonably be expected to occur. Indeed, take the real number line for example; you can choose any integer (zero for example) and surround it by an interval of length strictly less than 2 units; you can then keep increasing the length of this interval for an infinite duration of time without this interval ever including -1 or 1 simply by centralising the interval on 0 and continuously halving the distance between its endpoints to -1 and 1.
It could be the case perhaps that the infinity of universes spawned by some multiverse might be identified with the size of infinity when we talk about the integers (or the rational numbers even).
(2) given infinite past time, we should be observing an infinitely old universe, not the relatively young one we do observe.
Local to our universe, the multiverse hypothesis does not imply infinite past time for us - indeed perhaps by some temporal mechanism unknown to us which is manifest in a multiverse, time could have started for us *at* the big bang. (as modern physics suggests)
It doesn't suffice to provide a counter assertion that is incoherent, ad hoc, lacking of any corroborating scientific evidence, as well as being philosophically untenable—because it's not a viable option. You're going to have to do better than that to overthrow the Standard Big Bang Model and explain away the absolute beginning of space-time it predicts.
This model doesn't overthrow the big bang model, it is merely a generalisation of it (i.e. infinitely many universes experience big bangs). Also, the lack of evidence is moot when, as I said earlier, I'm using this as a counter assertion to "God necessarily caused the universe" since you have no more evidence for that than I have for the multiverse hypothesis. For the sake of fending off any conclusions in these sort of theist arguments that some "God" is necessarily responsible, the minimum requiement of a counter-proposal be that it not contradict itself. The burden on me is to argue it suffers no contradictions, the burden on you is to argue the contrary.
25 May 11
Originally posted by epiphinehasThe assumption 1) is unwarranted. There is no reason whatsoever to believe it to be the case. There is no evidence to support it. It is just made up so you can claim 3).
(1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause
(2) The universe began to exist
(3) Therefore, the universe has a cause
Discuss...
25 May 11
Originally posted by epiphinehas(1) An infinite past universe is philosophically untenable because an actual infinite number of things is impossible.
[b]3) If this is relevant, and has not been covered in my response to (1), would you please elaborate?
(1) An infinite past universe is philosophically untenable because an actual infinite number of things is impossible.
(2) Neither is an infinite past universe supported by scientific evidence: (a) the Standard Big Bang Model, and (b) the implications of the second law of thermodynamics.[/b]
The hypothesis I put forwards (for the sake of debate) does not invoke the notion of an infinite past universe.
(2) Neither is an infinite past universe supported by scientific evidence: (a) the Standard Big Bang Model, and (b) the implications of the second law of thermodynamics.
Surely the juristiction of the 2nd law can only be confidently said to be local to *our* universe. As for how things work `outside' then all bets are off.
25 May 11
I'll throw in my 2 cents
We know this universe is actually finite and currently expanding. Finite meaning it had a beginning. Objects we see in all directions are red-shifted moving away from us.
Our universe is not eternal in another words. It had a start. We can argue about how it started but there is no doubt it started.
Manny
25 May 11
Originally posted by menace71To be accurate, our universe, as we know it, had a start. It could quite easily have been something different prior to the big bang.
Our universe is not eternal in another words. It had a start. We can argue about how it started but there is no doubt it started.
25 May 11
Originally posted by epiphinehasJust to be clear, what do you mean by 'begins to exist'? Are we talking about a change of state (where energy is conserved and the standard laws of physics are followed) such as when I put some planks of wood together and a chair 'begins to exist'. Or are we talking about something else?
(1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause
Would an electron positron pair appearing out of empty space qualify?
Are we talking about within the framework of the known dimensions of space time, or are you adding another hypothetical dimension within which time itself can be thought of as beginning to exist?
Do you define "the universe" as "all that exists", or "from the big bang onwards" or "within the current known dimensions of space time"?
Why doesn't my browser know how to spell "onwards"?
25 May 11
1 edit
Originally posted by Agerg...the argument that there must exist at least one point where one or more universes spawned by a multiverse must intersect is neither a necessary conclusion of infinite `time'...
You are referring to the Vacuum Fluctuation Model, which didn't outlive the 1980's. The problem with this model that proved fatal was its incoherency: (1) given infinite past time, every point in the infinite vacuum will have spawned a baby universe (the universes colliding and coalescing with each other—this even if the universes within that vacuum occurr rgue it suffers no contradictions, the burden on you is to argue the contrary.
An infinite past allows for every possibility. It is necessary, therefore, that a universe spawn at every point in the primordial vacuum and each universe be infinitely old. (When you posit an infinite past these are the kind of difficulties you must overcome.)
... simply by centralising the interval on 0 and continuously halving the distance between its endpoints to -1 and 1. It could be the case perhaps that the infinity of universes spawned by some multiverse might be identified with the size of infinity when we talk about the integers...
Even if this were realistic, it still doesn't solve the problem of why, given the past eternal multiverse you propose, we do not live in an infinitely old universe.
Local to our universe, the multiverse hypothesis does not imply infinite past time for us - indeed perhaps by some temporal mechanism unknown to us which is manifest in a multiverse, time could have started for [b]us *at* the big bang. (as modern physics suggests).[/b]
According to the Vacuum Fluctuation Model any given mini-universe shares its space-time with the larger multiverse, meaning that before this moment there would have been an infinite amount of time elapsed—enough time for every point in the multiverse to have given birth to a universe; and enough time for every universe to have grown infinitely old.
For the sake of fending off any conclusions in these sort of theist arguments that some "God" is necessarily responsible, the minimum requiement of a counter-proposal be that it not contradict itself. The burden on me is to argue it suffers no contradictions, the burden on you is to argue the contrary.
And I have shown that your counter-proposal fails in this regard.