Total Posts:9|Showing Posts:1-9
Jump to topic:

Does It Prove A Beginning?

Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2013 8:26:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
This is related to science, but has philosophical undertones. Do you believe the BVG Theorem shows that the universe had a beginning?
Magic8000
Posts: 975
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2013 11:09:29 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Supposedly the BVG theorem rely on the classical ideas. Which makes it invalid

Vilenkin has said

[I]f someone asks me whether or not the theorem I proved with Borde and Guth implies that the universe had a beginning, I would say that the short answer is "yes". If you are willing to get into subtleties, then the answer is "No, but"" So, there are ways to get around having a beginning, but then you are forced to have something nearly as special as a beginning.

You have told me before that the BVG theorem assumes Hermann Minkowski Spacetime. Which implies the B theory of time, which says the universe has no beginning.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.

"So Magic8000 believes Einstein was a proctologist who was persuaded by the Government and Hitler to fabricate the Theory of Relativity"- GWL-CPA
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2013 11:11:53 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/4/2013 11:09:29 AM, Magic8000 wrote:
Supposedly the BVG theorem rely on the classical ideas. Which makes it invalid



Vilenkin has said

[I]f someone asks me whether or not the theorem I proved with Borde and Guth implies that the universe had a beginning, I would say that the short answer is "yes". If you are willing to get into subtleties, then the answer is "No, but"" So, there are ways to get around having a beginning, but then you are forced to have something nearly as special as a beginning.

You have told me before that the BVG theorem assumes Hermann Minkowski Spacetime. Which implies the B theory of time, which says the universe has no beginning.

Well, the chief result of the paper involves spacetime. By definition, that means that space and time are together. I'm not sure that Neo-Lorentzian relativity includes that, and it seems to suppose the Minkowski interpretation.
Magic8000
Posts: 975
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2013 1:25:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/4/2013 11:11:53 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/4/2013 11:09:29 AM, Magic8000 wrote:
Supposedly the BVG theorem rely on the classical ideas. Which makes it invalid



Vilenkin has said

[I]f someone asks me whether or not the theorem I proved with Borde and Guth implies that the universe had a beginning, I would say that the short answer is "yes". If you are willing to get into subtleties, then the answer is "No, but"" So, there are ways to get around having a beginning, but then you are forced to have something nearly as special as a beginning.

You have told me before that the BVG theorem assumes Hermann Minkowski Spacetime. Which implies the B theory of time, which says the universe has no beginning.

Well, the chief result of the paper involves spacetime. By definition, that means that space and time are together. I'm not sure that Neo-Lorentzian relativity includes that, and it seems to suppose the Minkowski interpretation.

It seems Neo Lorentzian doesn't. Here's how Billy Lamb Crate defines the interpretations.

1. The Relativity Interpretation: This interpretation posits a classical 3+1 ontology of physical objects enduring through time. It postulates a plurality of spaces and times relative to different reference frames. Measuring rods shrink up and clocks slow down relative to these various frames.

2. The Spacetime Interpretation: This interpretation posits a 4-dimensional geometry of spacetime points. The central feature of this interpretation is the light cone structure in spacetime, and the familiar notions of reference frames, speed of light, etc. play no role in this interpretation. Objects are four-dimensional wholes, whose respective proper times and lengths vary from coordinate system to coordinate system.

3. The Lorentzian Interpretation: This interpretation posits a 3+1 dimensional ontology featuring a privileged time and a privileged rest frame. Lengths contract and time rates dilate in the usual relativistic way only for systems in motion relative to the privileged rest frame.


http://www.reasonablefaith.org...
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.

"So Magic8000 believes Einstein was a proctologist who was persuaded by the Government and Hitler to fabricate the Theory of Relativity"- GWL-CPA
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2013 1:48:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/4/2013 1:25:30 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 11/4/2013 11:11:53 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/4/2013 11:09:29 AM, Magic8000 wrote:
Supposedly the BVG theorem rely on the classical ideas. Which makes it invalid



Vilenkin has said

[I]f someone asks me whether or not the theorem I proved with Borde and Guth implies that the universe had a beginning, I would say that the short answer is "yes". If you are willing to get into subtleties, then the answer is "No, but"" So, there are ways to get around having a beginning, but then you are forced to have something nearly as special as a beginning.

You have told me before that the BVG theorem assumes Hermann Minkowski Spacetime. Which implies the B theory of time, which says the universe has no beginning.

Well, the chief result of the paper involves spacetime. By definition, that means that space and time are together. I'm not sure that Neo-Lorentzian relativity includes that, and it seems to suppose the Minkowski interpretation.

It seems Neo Lorentzian doesn't. Here's how Billy Lamb Crate defines the interpretations.

1. The Relativity Interpretation: This interpretation posits a classical 3+1 ontology of physical objects enduring through time. It postulates a plurality of spaces and times relative to different reference frames. Measuring rods shrink up and clocks slow down relative to these various frames.

2. The Spacetime Interpretation: This interpretation posits a 4-dimensional geometry of spacetime points. The central feature of this interpretation is the light cone structure in spacetime, and the familiar notions of reference frames, speed of light, etc. play no role in this interpretation. Objects are four-dimensional wholes, whose respective proper times and lengths vary from coordinate system to coordinate system.

3. The Lorentzian Interpretation: This interpretation posits a 3+1 dimensional ontology featuring a privileged time and a privileged rest frame. Lengths contract and time rates dilate in the usual relativistic way only for systems in motion relative to the privileged rest frame.


http://www.reasonablefaith.org...

Yes, Dr. Craig's position seems contradictory. He adheres to both:

i) The BVG Theorem

ii) The Neo-Lorentzian interpretation of Special Relativity

The chief result of the BVG Theorem is:

" [A]lmost all causal geodesics, when extended to the past of an arbitrary point, reach the boundary of the inflating region of spacetime in a finite proper time (finite affine length, in the null case)" - Alexander Vilenkin

But Dr. Craig adheres to the Neo-Lorentzian interpretation; not the spacetime interpretation.... Mmmm. Perhaps the theorem works regardless, and Vilenkin just put it in term of "spacetime", because that is the view most commonly accepted. However, Craig has not shown this to be the case.
Magic8000
Posts: 975
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2013 4:42:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/4/2013 1:48:26 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/4/2013 1:25:30 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 11/4/2013 11:11:53 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/4/2013 11:09:29 AM, Magic8000 wrote:
Supposedly the BVG theorem rely on the classical ideas. Which makes it invalid



Vilenkin has said

[I]f someone asks me whether or not the theorem I proved with Borde and Guth implies that the universe had a beginning, I would say that the short answer is "yes". If you are willing to get into subtleties, then the answer is "No, but"" So, there are ways to get around having a beginning, but then you are forced to have something nearly as special as a beginning.

You have told me before that the BVG theorem assumes Hermann Minkowski Spacetime. Which implies the B theory of time, which says the universe has no beginning.

Well, the chief result of the paper involves spacetime. By definition, that means that space and time are together. I'm not sure that Neo-Lorentzian relativity includes that, and it seems to suppose the Minkowski interpretation.

It seems Neo Lorentzian doesn't. Here's how Billy Lamb Crate defines the interpretations.

1. The Relativity Interpretation: This interpretation posits a classical 3+1 ontology of physical objects enduring through time. It postulates a plurality of spaces and times relative to different reference frames. Measuring rods shrink up and clocks slow down relative to these various frames.

2. The Spacetime Interpretation: This interpretation posits a 4-dimensional geometry of spacetime points. The central feature of this interpretation is the light cone structure in spacetime, and the familiar notions of reference frames, speed of light, etc. play no role in this interpretation. Objects are four-dimensional wholes, whose respective proper times and lengths vary from coordinate system to coordinate system.

3. The Lorentzian Interpretation: This interpretation posits a 3+1 dimensional ontology featuring a privileged time and a privileged rest frame. Lengths contract and time rates dilate in the usual relativistic way only for systems in motion relative to the privileged rest frame.


http://www.reasonablefaith.org...

Yes, Dr. Craig's position seems contradictory. He adheres to both:

i) The BVG Theorem

ii) The Neo-Lorentzian interpretation of Special Relativity

The chief result of the BVG Theorem is:

" [A]lmost all causal geodesics, when extended to the past of an arbitrary point, reach the boundary of the inflating region of spacetime in a finite proper time (finite affine length, in the null case)" - Alexander Vilenkin

But Dr. Craig adheres to the Neo-Lorentzian interpretation; not the spacetime interpretation.... Mmmm. Perhaps the theorem works regardless, and Vilenkin just put it in term of "spacetime", because that is the view most commonly accepted. However, Craig has not shown this to be the case.

I might see if I can contact Vilenkin and ask him.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.

"So Magic8000 believes Einstein was a proctologist who was persuaded by the Government and Hitler to fabricate the Theory of Relativity"- GWL-CPA
Magic8000
Posts: 975
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2013 5:00:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Found his email and asked him.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.

"So Magic8000 believes Einstein was a proctologist who was persuaded by the Government and Hitler to fabricate the Theory of Relativity"- GWL-CPA
Sargon
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2013 9:20:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/4/2013 11:11:53 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/4/2013 11:09:29 AM, Magic8000 wrote:
Supposedly the BVG theorem rely on the classical ideas. Which makes it invalid



Vilenkin has said

[I]f someone asks me whether or not the theorem I proved with Borde and Guth implies that the universe had a beginning, I would say that the short answer is "yes". If you are willing to get into subtleties, then the answer is "No, but"" So, there are ways to get around having a beginning, but then you are forced to have something nearly as special as a beginning.

You have told me before that the BVG theorem assumes Hermann Minkowski Spacetime. Which implies the B theory of time, which says the universe has no beginning.

Well, the chief result of the paper involves spacetime. By definition, that means that space and time are together. I'm not sure that Neo-Lorentzian relativity includes that, and it seems to suppose the Minkowski interpretation.

I'm not sure if the link between Minowski space-time and B-theory is as clear-cut as suggested. Sean Carroll, for example, accepts standard relativity, and he insists that temporal becoming is a real thing. Many philosophers have tried to show that presentism is still consistent with Einstein's ideas (for example, one could accept it as merely operational, or adopt space-time anti-realism, etc). So, perhaps, one can accept a theorem based on standard relativity and keep temporal becoming as well.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2013 2:41:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/4/2013 9:20:21 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/4/2013 11:11:53 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/4/2013 11:09:29 AM, Magic8000 wrote:
Supposedly the BVG theorem rely on the classical ideas. Which makes it invalid



Vilenkin has said

[I]f someone asks me whether or not the theorem I proved with Borde and Guth implies that the universe had a beginning, I would say that the short answer is "yes". If you are willing to get into subtleties, then the answer is "No, but"" So, there are ways to get around having a beginning, but then you are forced to have something nearly as special as a beginning.

You have told me before that the BVG theorem assumes Hermann Minkowski Spacetime. Which implies the B theory of time, which says the universe has no beginning.

Well, the chief result of the paper involves spacetime. By definition, that means that space and time are together. I'm not sure that Neo-Lorentzian relativity includes that, and it seems to suppose the Minkowski interpretation.

I'm not sure if the link between Minowski space-time and B-theory is as clear-cut as suggested. Sean Carroll, for example, accepts standard relativity, and he insists that temporal becoming is a real thing.

He must be a Moving Spotlight Theorist then:

"If you believe the laws of physics, there is just as much reality to the future and the past, as there is to the present moment." - Sean Carrol

Many philosophers have tried to show that presentism is still consistent with Einstein's ideas (for example, one could accept it as merely operational, or adopt space-time anti-realism, etc). So, perhaps, one can accept a theorem based on standard relativity and keep temporal becoming as well.