Total Posts:48|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Multiverse and Infinity

GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2010 6:08:38 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
To those who say that the Universe cannot be eternal, then I can still grant you this premise and posit an eternal Multiverse. Here's why.

Let's assume that our universe had a beginning at the Big Bang, which it did. If you posit that there are multiple, finite universes like ours, then you have yourself a Multiverse.

I think earlier that there was a language issue, rather than a philosophical or mathematical one. We were treating the Multiverse like a "thing" with the same properties of our current observable universe that started at the Big Bang.

If we were to, instead of Multiverse, word it as multiple finite universes emerging and collapsing, then the criticism simply doesn't apply because no one is positing an infinite thing, but rather a collection of multiple finite things that always have and always will be emerging and collapsing.

This is what the Multiverse is. It's not a thing, it's a spaceless and timeless void.

(The Multiverse can only be considered the Universe on a technicality.)
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2010 6:15:29 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/14/2010 6:08:38 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
To those who say that the Universe cannot be eternal, then I can still grant you this premise and posit an eternal Multiverse. Here's why.

Let's assume that our universe had a beginning at the Big Bang, which it did. If you posit that there are multiple, finite universes like ours, then you have yourself a Multiverse.

I think earlier that there was a language issue, rather than a philosophical or mathematical one. We were treating the Multiverse like a "thing" with the same properties of our current observable universe that started at the Big Bang.

If we were to, instead of Multiverse, word it as multiple finite universes emerging and collapsing, then the criticism simply doesn't apply because no one is positing an infinite thing, but rather a collection of multiple finite things that always have and always will be emerging and collapsing.

This is what the Multiverse is. It's not a thing, it's a spaceless and timeless void.


(The Multiverse can only be considered the Universe on a technicality.)

I love your explanation. I however had no arguments with any of the other threads about this so I suppose this doesn't apply to me.
Expect multiple "Prove it"'s shortly.
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2010 6:16:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Yeah, just call the Universe the Multiverse in all previous problems, and you have the same problem.

And you may claim that this example has no one infinite universe, but it has infinite finite universes, which is just as bad, if not worse.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2010 6:18:25 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/14/2010 6:11:52 PM, FREEDO wrote:
You've merely change the problem. Now there needs to be a cause behind this system.

False. Notice that I posited an eternal Multiverse. Nothing caused it because it's a collection of finite universe that exist in a hyperspace void. It doesn't have a beginning.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2010 6:20:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/14/2010 6:18:25 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 7/14/2010 6:11:52 PM, FREEDO wrote:
You've merely change the problem. Now there needs to be a cause behind this system.

False. Notice that I posited an eternal Multiverse. Nothing caused it because it's a collection of finite universe that exist in a hyperspace void. It doesn't have a beginning.

Because it is eternal. Because it has infinite universes.

And yet you claim that it only has finite universes. How can it be eternal, then?
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2010 6:23:03 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/14/2010 6:20:35 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 7/14/2010 6:18:25 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 7/14/2010 6:11:52 PM, FREEDO wrote:
You've merely change the problem. Now there needs to be a cause behind this system.

False. Notice that I posited an eternal Multiverse. Nothing caused it because it's a collection of finite universe that exist in a hyperspace void. It doesn't have a beginning.

Because it is eternal. Because it has infinite universes.

And yet you claim that it only has finite universes. How can it be eternal, then?

Because the space that the finite universes are in has always existed and will always exist... ?
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2010 6:29:36 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/14/2010 6:20:35 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 7/14/2010 6:18:25 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 7/14/2010 6:11:52 PM, FREEDO wrote:
You've merely change the problem. Now there needs to be a cause behind this system.

False. Notice that I posited an eternal Multiverse. Nothing caused it because it's a collection of finite universe that exist in a hyperspace void. It doesn't have a beginning.

Because it is eternal. Because it has infinite universes.

And yet you claim that it only has finite universes. How can it be eternal, then?

There are multiple finite universes that emerge and collapse, and more finite universes emerge and collapse, and this process continues forever.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Atheism
Posts: 2,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2010 7:03:15 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/14/2010 6:29:36 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 7/14/2010 6:20:35 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 7/14/2010 6:18:25 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 7/14/2010 6:11:52 PM, FREEDO wrote:
You've merely change the problem. Now there needs to be a cause behind this system.

False. Notice that I posited an eternal Multiverse. Nothing caused it because it's a collection of finite universe that exist in a hyperspace void. It doesn't have a beginning.

Because it is eternal. Because it has infinite universes.

And yet you claim that it only has finite universes. How can it be eternal, then?

There are multiple finite universes that emerge and collapse, and more finite universes emerge and collapse, and this process continues forever.
Expect more people to say, "Well, what caused the first one?"
I miss the old members.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2010 8:08:36 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/14/2010 6:15:29 PM, tvellalott wrote:

Expect multiple "Prove it"'s shortly.

Yup.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2010 8:18:34 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/14/2010 8:08:36 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 7/14/2010 6:15:29 PM, tvellalott wrote:

Expect multiple "Prove it"'s shortly.

Yup.

^_^
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2010 9:01:25 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/14/2010 6:08:38 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
To those who say that the Universe cannot be eternal, then I can still grant you this premise and posit an eternal Multiverse. Here's why.

Let's assume that our universe had a beginning at the Big Bang, which it did. If you posit that there are multiple, finite universes like ours, then you have yourself a Multiverse.

I think earlier that there was a language issue, rather than a philosophical or mathematical one. We were treating the Multiverse like a "thing" with the same properties of our current observable universe that started at the Big Bang.

If we were to, instead of Multiverse, word it as multiple finite universes emerging and collapsing, then the criticism simply doesn't apply because no one is positing an infinite thing, but rather a collection of multiple finite things that always have and always will be emerging and collapsing.

This is what the Multiverse is. It's not a thing, it's a spaceless and timeless void.


(The Multiverse can only be considered the Universe on a technicality.)

Simple, take your last sentence (second to last): "It's (Multiverse) not a thing, it's a spaceless and timeless void." This is meaningless drivel. A contradiction in meaning. Utter nonsense that only makes sense poetically.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2010 9:22:19 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/14/2010 9:01:25 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
Simple, take your last sentence (second to last): "It's (Multiverse) not a thing, it's a spaceless and timeless void." This is meaningless drivel. A contradiction in meaning. Utter nonsense that only makes sense poetically.

You're an idiot. It's scientifically accepted that time and space emerged at the beginning of the Big Bang. Whatever preceded the Big Bang was spaceless and timeless. Not to mention, a void is NOT a thing. Clearly, you just call things as meaningless poetic nonsense if you can't understand something.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2010 9:29:15 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/14/2010 8:08:36 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 7/14/2010 6:15:29 PM, tvellalott wrote:
Expect multiple "Prove it"'s shortly.

Yup.

This is about whether an eternal Multiverse is possible or not. So far, the majority of the criticism is that an eternal Multiverse is IMPOSSIBLE, and therefore they have the burden of proof.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2010 9:44:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/14/2010 6:18:25 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 7/14/2010 6:11:52 PM, FREEDO wrote:
You've merely change the problem. Now there needs to be a cause behind this system.

False. Notice that I posited an eternal Multiverse. Nothing caused it because it's a collection of finite universe that exist in a hyperspace void. It doesn't have a beginning.

imagine a room of infinite volume that has existed eternally. impossible you might say.... and claiming its a house made up of an infinite number of finite rooms doesn't change the problem at all. its simply a different way of labeling the same problem, which is apparently fooling you. if this "multiverse" you speak of can exist without cause for infinity then so can the universe. and if its philosophically sticky for the universe to do so then the same issue applies to the multiverse.

At 7/14/2010 9:22:19 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 7/14/2010 9:01:25 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
Simple, take your last sentence (second to last): "It's (Multiverse) not a thing, it's a spaceless and timeless void." This is meaningless drivel. A contradiction in meaning. Utter nonsense that only makes sense poetically.

You're an idiot. It's scientifically accepted that time and space emerged at the beginning of the Big Bang. Whatever preceded the Big Bang was spaceless and timeless. Not to mention, a void is NOT a thing. Clearly, you just call things as meaningless poetic nonsense if you can't understand something.

actually, its scientifically accepted that whatever came before the big bang left no trace in our current universe and thats all. we can't know. literally. you're just making things up when you talk about "whatever preceded the big bang" if you try to ascribe it any properties, or even if you claim to know that it had no properties.

furthermore, if we exist "in a hyperspace void" and yet a void is not a thing then how do we exist? we are things. to even construct the sentence fragment "it is" in relation to the term "void" is to affirm that a void is a thing. of course you could claim that "void" is a term of negation, signaling absence, like "nothing", but even then you still have the problem of the universe, clearly NOT nothing, existing as somehow an aspect of nothing..
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2010 9:18:04 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/14/2010 9:22:19 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
You're an idiot. It's scientifically accepted that time and space emerged at the beginning of the Big Bang. Whatever preceded the Big Bang was spaceless and timeless. Not to mention, a void is NOT a thing. Clearly, you just call things as meaningless poetic nonsense if you can't understand something.

Tisk tisk. Name calling is a clear sign of a weak argument. First of all, it is accepted scientifically that time and space emerged after the beginning of the Big Bang. In other words, after t=0. Secondly, the Big Bang Theory makes no mention of "whatever preceded the Big Bang" as it is undefined NOT "spaceless and timeless" UNDEFINED. But that's not the whopper, here's the whopper: "Not to mention, a void is NOT a thing."

Now that's idiotic!
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2010 9:34:14 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/14/2010 9:44:07 PM, belle wrote:
furthermore, if we exist "in a hyperspace void" and yet a void is not a thing then how do we exist? we are things. to even construct the sentence fragment "it is" in relation to the term "void" is to affirm that a void is a thing. of course you could claim that "void" is a term of negation, signaling absence, like "nothing", but even then you still have the problem of the universe, clearly NOT nothing, existing as somehow an aspect of nothing.

I agree with all your points, belle. I usually find your analogies refreshing and not the same old ones; kudos to you. I'd like to say that even if a "void" is a negation of "something" it is still a thing as all negations of things are things in and of themselves. The way he is trying to use the term "void" is like the term "nothing" to mean "no thing" which of course is a contradiction in terms or meaning, a paradox, and meaningless drivel. But he loves that pseudo science BS anyways, that's why he got so upset & insulting when I said that it only made sense poetically.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Valtarov
Posts: 136
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2010 9:44:12 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/14/2010 6:08:38 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
To those who say that the Universe cannot be eternal, then I can still grant you this premise and posit an eternal Multiverse. Here's why.

Let's assume that our universe had a beginning at the Big Bang, which it did. If you posit that there are multiple, finite universes like ours, then you have yourself a Multiverse.

I think earlier that there was a language issue, rather than a philosophical or mathematical one. We were treating the Multiverse like a "thing" with the same properties of our current observable universe that started at the Big Bang.

If we were to, instead of Multiverse, word it as multiple finite universes emerging and collapsing, then the criticism simply doesn't apply because no one is positing an infinite thing, but rather a collection of multiple finite things that always have and always will be emerging and collapsing.

This is what the Multiverse is. It's not a thing, it's a spaceless and timeless void.


(The Multiverse can only be considered the Universe on a technicality.)

Problem: The entire theory is non-falsifiable. It cannot be proven nor disproven.
"We are half-hearted creatures,
fooling about with drink and sex and
ambition when infinite joy is offered us,
like an ignorant child who wants to go on
making mud pies in a slum because he
cannot imagine what is meant by the offer
of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily
pleased."—C.S. Lewis, "The Weight of Glory"
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2010 9:46:42 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/14/2010 6:29:36 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 7/14/2010 6:20:35 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 7/14/2010 6:18:25 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 7/14/2010 6:11:52 PM, FREEDO wrote:
You've merely change the problem. Now there needs to be a cause behind this system.

False. Notice that I posited an eternal Multiverse. Nothing caused it because it's a collection of finite universe that exist in a hyperspace void. It doesn't have a beginning.

Because it is eternal. Because it has infinite universes.

And yet you claim that it only has finite universes. How can it be eternal, then?

There are multiple finite universes that emerge and collapse, and more finite universes emerge and collapse, and this process continues forever.

"Multiple"? How many? Five? Ten? Infinite?

How many times have they done this? Fine? Ten? Infinite?

Continuing forever implies eternal time, which drags us right back into the problem of infinite events.
Valtarov
Posts: 136
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2010 9:46:54 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/14/2010 9:22:19 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 7/14/2010 9:01:25 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
Simple, take your last sentence (second to last): "It's (Multiverse) not a thing, it's a spaceless and timeless void." This is meaningless drivel. A contradiction in meaning. Utter nonsense that only makes sense poetically.

You're an idiot. It's scientifically accepted that time and space emerged at the beginning of the Big Bang. Whatever preceded the Big Bang was spaceless and timeless. Not to mention, a void is NOT a thing. Clearly, you just call things as meaningless poetic nonsense if you can't understand something.

So the multi-verse is nothing. I thought that you couldn't have something coming from nothing by natural causes.
"We are half-hearted creatures,
fooling about with drink and sex and
ambition when infinite joy is offered us,
like an ignorant child who wants to go on
making mud pies in a slum because he
cannot imagine what is meant by the offer
of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily
pleased."—C.S. Lewis, "The Weight of Glory"
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2010 12:08:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
You guys are getting too hung up on semantics.

From now one, I will refer to it as "hyperspace" (which is what physicist Michio Kaku says it is) instead of "void."
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2010 12:08:52 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/14/2010 6:08:38 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
To those who say that the Universe cannot be eternal, then I can still grant you this premise and posit an eternal Multiverse. Here's why.

Let's assume that our universe had a beginning at the Big Bang, which it did. If you posit that there are multiple, finite universes like ours, then you have yourself a Multiverse.

I think earlier that there was a language issue, rather than a philosophical or mathematical one. We were treating the Multiverse like a "thing" with the same properties of our current observable universe that started at the Big Bang.

If we were to, instead of Multiverse, word it as multiple finite universes emerging and collapsing, then the criticism simply doesn't apply because no one is positing an infinite thing, but rather a collection of multiple finite things that always have and always will be emerging and collapsing.

This is what the Multiverse is. It's not a thing, it's a spaceless and timeless void.:

Theoretically it is within the realm of possibility, but there is no evidence to suggest it. But then, it's also theoretically possible that teapots are orbiting the furthest star. It also forces one in to an infinite regression of explanations until an actual infinite is proven. As of now, infinity is nothing more than an abstract concept (like God). An actual infinite is yet to be seen outside of theoretical mathematics.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2010 12:46:12 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/15/2010 12:08:45 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
You guys are getting too hung up on semantics.

From now one, I will refer to it as "hyperspace" (which is what physicist Michio Kaku says it is) instead of "void."

ROFL! Your definition of "void" is a contradiction and you think that by changing the word it fixes things? And I'm an idiot?

Hyperspace is NOT a void or a nothing like you were saying before. It is simply a space that has more than 3 geometric dimensions. There is ZERO empirical evidence for that. Try again.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2010 4:04:09 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
@belle and tboonepickens

"As Stephen Hawking proved, the singularity is not in spacetime, but rather is the boundary of space and time (see S. W. Hawking and G. F. R. Ellis, The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time [London: Cambridge University Press, 1973], pp. 217-221)." - http://www.guardian.co.uk...
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Valtarov
Posts: 136
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2010 8:22:39 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/16/2010 4:04:09 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
@belle and tboonepickens

"As Stephen Hawking proved, the singularity is not in spacetime, but rather is the boundary of space and time (see S. W. Hawking and G. F. R. Ellis, The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time [London: Cambridge University Press, 1973], pp. 217-221)." - http://www.guardian.co.uk...

The entire theory is still completely non-falsifiable.

Also, I don't know how much credibility I'd give Hawking. He's brilliant, but he's also gone to great lengths to try to come up with any model that fits with current knowledge of cosmology but does not have an actual beginning. He's put out several attempts, but all failed.
"We are half-hearted creatures,
fooling about with drink and sex and
ambition when infinite joy is offered us,
like an ignorant child who wants to go on
making mud pies in a slum because he
cannot imagine what is meant by the offer
of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily
pleased."—C.S. Lewis, "The Weight of Glory"
Mattsterpiece1993
Posts: 25
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2010 9:54:13 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I would recommend using "cosmos", for any hypothetical multi-verse model.

The problem here is that this is entirely speculative. Current observations support a single universe. All models that are cyclical, contract-bounce, or anything that involves multiverse, do not succeed in avoiding an absolute beginning anyhow.

Moreover, when objecting to an actual infinite, quanties are being looked at. So, positing an infinite number of separate universes, one, gives us an actual infinite (which is metaphysically impossible), and two, is asking us to accept way more than what standard multi-verse models posit. Mathematical frameworks for multi-verse models leave us with a limited number of universes, which is, again, still speculative.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2010 3:53:24 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/16/2010 4:04:09 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
@belle and tboonepickens

"As Stephen Hawking proved, the singularity is not in spacetime, but rather is the boundary of space and time (see S. W. Hawking and G. F. R. Ellis, The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time [London: Cambridge University Press, 1973], pp. 217-221)." - http://www.guardian.co.uk...

And this refutes exactly what? And proves exactly which point you have made? Answer to both: NOTHING.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2010 3:56:55 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/17/2010 9:54:13 AM, Mattsterpiece1993 wrote:
I would recommend using "cosmos", for any hypothetical multi-verse model.

The problem here is that this is entirely speculative. Current observations support a single universe. All models that are cyclical, contract-bounce, or anything that involves multiverse, do not succeed in avoiding an absolute beginning anyhow.

Moreover, when objecting to an actual infinite, quanties are being looked at. So, positing an infinite number of separate universes, one, gives us an actual infinite (which is metaphysically impossible), and two, is asking us to accept way more than what standard multi-verse models posit. Mathematical frameworks for multi-verse models leave us with a limited number of universes, which is, again, still speculative.

Good points. I think that perhaps the initial state is an uncaused state that existed indefinitely or timelessly. I guess one might say eternally but that too is a temporal term.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2010 6:09:42 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/16/2010 4:04:09 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
@belle and tboonepickens

"As Stephen Hawking proved, the singularity is not in spacetime, but rather is the boundary of space and time (see S. W. Hawking and G. F. R. Ellis, The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time [London: Cambridge University Press, 1973], pp. 217-221)." - http://www.guardian.co.uk...

whats the context of that statement? i'm not even sure what point you are trying to make lol. in any case, in a brief history of time hawking stated that he no longer believed there was a singularity at/before the big bang at all... also note what he says about the known laws of science and the beginning of the universe...

"in order to predict how the universe should have started off, one needs laws that hold at the beginning of time. if the classical theory of general relativity was correct, the singularity theorems that Roger Penrose and i proved that that the beginning of time would have been a point of infinite density and infinite curvature of space-time. all the known laws of science would break down at such a point. one might suppose that there were new laws that held at singularities, but it would be very difficult to even formulate such laws at such badly behaved points, and we would have no guide from observations as to what those laws might be. however, what the singularity theorems really indicate is that the gravitational effects become important: classical theory is no longer a good description of the universe. so one has to use quantum theory of gravity to discuss the very early stages of the universe. as we shall see, it is possible in the quantum theory for the ordinary laws of science to hold everywhere, including at the beginning of time: its not necessary to postulate new laws for singularities, because there need not be any singularities in the quantum theory" (pg133).
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2010 3:10:13 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/14/2010 6:08:38 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
To those who say that the Universe cannot be eternal, then I can still grant you this premise and posit an eternal Multiverse. Here's why.

Let's assume that our universe had a beginning at the Big Bang, which it did. If you posit that there are multiple, finite universes like ours, then you have yourself a Multiverse.

I think earlier that there was a language issue, rather than a philosophical or mathematical one. We were treating the Multiverse like a "thing" with the same properties of our current observable universe that started at the Big Bang.

If we were to, instead of Multiverse, word it as multiple finite universes emerging and collapsing, then the criticism simply doesn't apply because no one is positing an infinite thing, but rather a collection of multiple finite things that always have and always will be emerging and collapsing.

This is what the Multiverse is. It's not a thing, it's a spaceless and timeless void.


(The Multiverse can only be considered the Universe on a technicality.)

Universe: One problem. (matter/energy; from where?)
Multiverse: Multiple problems!
The Cross.. the Cross.