Concept of Infinity

[swoleupinya]

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

It always existed.

Where did god come from, nothing?
[/quote]

The concept of god is itself an entity outside of the universe. Asking for an explanation on the origin of god as bound by the rules of the universe in nonsensical.[/quote]

Believing in something outside of the causal chain and claiming that it caused that chain, that’s nonsensical.
[/quote]

No it’s a paradox either way. Scientifically there has to be a cause, but a cause violates science. Observation and science tell us everything has a cause, but they also tell up the universe cannot have been created.

Most people accept that there must be a cause and in doing so believe that there is something external to the universe. There is nothing nonsensical about it.

You are the one essentially asking me to describe completely the game of baseball using only football terminology. “Where did god come from?” is nonsensical. Where and from are concepts dealing with our perception of the physical universe. God by definition isn’t part of the physical universe. To ask a question about god requires the premise that he isn’t bound to physical laws.[/quote]

A lack of causality does not “violate science.”

Nor has science told us that the “universe cannot have been created.”
[/quote]

All of science is based on the assumption of causality. If the universe has no cause, pretty much all of science is technically built on a invalid premise.

Science states that matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed. So yeah the creation of the universe would also violate science.[/quote]

ummm… I’m afraid you are confusing determined and/or widely accepted laws of physics with science.

Hawkings, who has already been mentioned once or twice in this thread, has done a respectable job of turning around the causality paradigm.

[/quote]
got a link or something?

Also, the law of conservation of mass and energy is in relation to a closed system. Matter and anti-matter annihilate when they come into contact… so, at some level, matter can be destroyed. Secondly, the universe doesn’t require being created.

We’re coming back to the original point of the thread which was the difficulty of understanding infinity.

What you are talking about is conversion, not creation. Matter and energy are really the same thing, you can convert one to the other. You cannot create and destroy it though.

Black holes convert matter to energy via hawking radiation too, which is pretty neat.

And isn’t the universe itself a closed (more truly and isolated) system?[/quote]

A link or something? Seriously? We’re talking about Hawkings here… I’m pretty sure you could find his books at the library. To be specific, though, he showed that time flows backwards in a black hole. This effectively eliminate our understanding of causality.

Apparently we agree on the law of conservation. Though, I should note that earlier you said matter and energy cannot be destroyed… not exactly specific.

Still, the universe being created does not violate “science.” It violates one or two of the more widely agreed upon rules of physics… these things do get proven to be wrong and/or limited in scope sometimes.

[swoleupinya]

[quote]K2inmt wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[quote]K2inmt wrote:

Speaking for myself and not ephrem;

Both are about equal in logic. However, there is more evidence to support an infinite universe.

How could there be more evidence to support an infinite universe? In order to throw out God you must throw out all history and all DNA evidence most logic. But 100 people have looked at the universe with some authority to talk about it and there is more evidence to support infinite? Look here is logic! Once there was nothing it is that simple, and something out side of what we know to be peace of are universe of reality, made the 1st something in are universe and that is God or the crater as many would say and if it was not for that there would still be nothing in are universe. Any questions?! [/quote]

Yes. I have a few questions.

Why must I throw out all history, DNA evidence and most logic… if i don’t believe in god? And what history, DNA evidence and logic are you talking about here?[/quote]

1 There is more historic evidence on God then any other subject !

2 DNA has shown that we are not as old as other animals that have evolved. We are just not that old.

[/quote]

Good luck with this line of argument!

[swoleupinya]

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

All of science is based on the assumption of causality. If the universe has no cause, pretty much all of science is technically built on a invalid premise.

Science states that matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed. So yeah the creation of the universe would also violate science.[/quote]

A universe collapsing into a singularity does not violate science. No information is lost during the collaps, it is simply re-ordered.

Upon expansion the energy cools and orders itself once more.[/quote]

Yes, singularities do in fact destroy information.[/quote]

WHAT!?!?

Ummm… no. Again… Hawkings.

[DoubleDuce]

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

All of science is based on the assumption of causality. If the universe has no cause, pretty much all of science is technically built on a invalid premise.

Science states that matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed. So yeah the creation of the universe would also violate science.[/quote]

A universe collapsing into a singularity does not violate science. No information is lost during the collaps, it is simply re-ordered.

Upon expansion the energy cools and orders itself once more.[/quote]

Yes, singularities do in fact destroy information.[/quote]

WHAT!?!?

Ummm… no. Again… Hawkings. [/quote]

I’ve read some hawking books. I was asking which I should look at.

There is still debate. I had edited my post to reflect that, but my edit disappeared. But yeah, hawking has a lot to say about how the big bang is in essence the beginning of time because the singularity would have created a causal discontinuity. Maybe the stuff I’ve read is outdated and things have changed. But last I had read, the singularity destroys the information of the system before the singularity according to hawking.

[swoleupinya]

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

All of science is based on the assumption of causality. If the universe has no cause, pretty much all of science is technically built on a invalid premise.

Science states that matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed. So yeah the creation of the universe would also violate science.[/quote]

A universe collapsing into a singularity does not violate science. No information is lost during the collaps, it is simply re-ordered.

Upon expansion the energy cools and orders itself once more.[/quote]

Yes, singularities do in fact destroy information.[/quote]

WHAT!?!?

Ummm… no. Again… Hawkings. [/quote]

I’ve read some hawking books. I was asking which I should look at.

There is still debate. I had edited my post to reflect that, but my edit disappeared. But yeah, hawking has a lot to say about how the big bang is in essence the beginning of time because the singularity would have created a causal discontinuity. Maybe the stuff I’ve read is outdated and things have changed. But last I had read, the singularity destroys the information of the system before the singularity according to hawking.[/quote]

Okay… on that, you may be right. I was thinking more in terms of the singularity of a black hole, which Hawkings pretty clearly theorized does not destroy information.

[DoubleDuce]

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

All of science is based on the assumption of causality. If the universe has no cause, pretty much all of science is technically built on a invalid premise.

Science states that matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed. So yeah the creation of the universe would also violate science.[/quote]

A universe collapsing into a singularity does not violate science. No information is lost during the collaps, it is simply re-ordered.

Upon expansion the energy cools and orders itself once more.[/quote]

Yes, singularities do in fact destroy information.[/quote]

WHAT!?!?

Ummm… no. Again… Hawkings. [/quote]

I’ve read some hawking books. I was asking which I should look at.

There is still debate. I had edited my post to reflect that, but my edit disappeared. But yeah, hawking has a lot to say about how the big bang is in essence the beginning of time because the singularity would have created a causal discontinuity. Maybe the stuff I’ve read is outdated and things have changed. But last I had read, the singularity destroys the information of the system before the singularity according to hawking.[/quote]

Okay… on that, you may be right. I was thinking more in terms of the singularity of a black hole, which Hawkings pretty clearly theorized does not destroy information.
[/quote]

Well, crap, now I have to go re-read stuff.

[ephrem]

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

All of science is based on the assumption of causality. If the universe has no cause, pretty much all of science is technically built on a invalid premise.

Science states that matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed. So yeah the creation of the universe would also violate science.[/quote]

A universe collapsing into a singularity does not violate science. No information is lost during the collaps, it is simply re-ordered.

Upon expansion the energy cools and orders itself once more.[/quote]

Yes, singularities do in fact destroy information.[/quote]

If i reformat my harddrive i destroyed the information stored on it, yes. But what i’ve really done is simply re-arrange the magnetic particles on the disk.

I shouldn’t have used the word “information”, my bad. But the singularity we’re talking about; the universe collapsing onto itself in to an infinitly dense point containing all the energy there is, that’s something else than a black hole.

There is evidence for the B.B. in the form of Cosmic Background Radiation. Evidence that god exists eludes us. I have a stronger case than you.

[ephrem]

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

Okay… on that, you may be right. I was thinking more in terms of the singularity of a black hole, which Hawkings pretty clearly theorized does not destroy information.
[/quote]

Well, crap, now I have to go re-read stuff.[/quote]

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Black holes turned 'inside out'

[DoubleDuce]

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

All of science is based on the assumption of causality. If the universe has no cause, pretty much all of science is technically built on a invalid premise.

Science states that matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed. So yeah the creation of the universe would also violate science.[/quote]

A universe collapsing into a singularity does not violate science. No information is lost during the collaps, it is simply re-ordered.

Upon expansion the energy cools and orders itself once more.[/quote]

Yes, singularities do in fact destroy information.[/quote]

If i reformat my harddrive i destroyed the information stored on it, yes. But what i’ve really done is simply re-arrange the magnetic particles on the disk.

I shouldn’t have used the word “information”, my bad. But the singularity we’re talking about; the universe collapsing onto itself in to an infinitly dense point containing all the energy there is, that’s something else than a black hole.

There is evidence for the B.B. in the form of Cosmic Background Radiation. Evidence that god exists eludes us. I have a stronger case than you.
[/quote]

No. A black hole converts matter to energy. It doesn’t simply rearrange it.

Plus the BB is not the same as an infinite universe and existence is observational evidence of an external cause. There I have as much evidence as you.

BUT an infinite universe isn’t really an answer to how things started anyway.

[DoubleDuce]

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

Okay… on that, you may be right. I was thinking more in terms of the singularity of a black hole, which Hawkings pretty clearly theorized does not destroy information.
[/quote]

Well, crap, now I have to go re-read stuff.[/quote]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3913145.stm[/quote]

My books are older than 2004. cool stuff.

[swoleupinya]

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

All of science is based on the assumption of causality. If the universe has no cause, pretty much all of science is technically built on a invalid premise.

Science states that matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed. So yeah the creation of the universe would also violate science.[/quote]

A universe collapsing into a singularity does not violate science. No information is lost during the collaps, it is simply re-ordered.

Upon expansion the energy cools and orders itself once more.[/quote]

Yes, singularities do in fact destroy information.[/quote]

WHAT!?!?

Ummm… no. Again… Hawkings. [/quote]

I’ve read some hawking books. I was asking which I should look at.

There is still debate. I had edited my post to reflect that, but my edit disappeared. But yeah, hawking has a lot to say about how the big bang is in essence the beginning of time because the singularity would have created a causal discontinuity. Maybe the stuff I’ve read is outdated and things have changed. But last I had read, the singularity destroys the information of the system before the singularity according to hawking.[/quote]

Okay… on that, you may be right. I was thinking more in terms of the singularity of a black hole, which Hawkings pretty clearly theorized does not destroy information.
[/quote]

Well, crap, now I have to go re-read stuff.[/quote]

If I’m wrong, I’m just going to stick with it… I really don’t enjoy reading Hawkings.

[DoubleDuce]

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
If I’m wrong, I’m just going to stick with it… I really don’t enjoy reading Hawkings.
[/quote]

I honestly don’t enjoy reading it either. I enjoy thinking about it afterward.

[ephrem]

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
If i reformat my harddrive i destroyed the information stored on it, yes. But what i’ve really done is simply re-arrange the magnetic particles on the disk.

I shouldn’t have used the word “information”, my bad. But the singularity we’re talking about; the universe collapsing onto itself in to an infinitly dense point containing all the energy there is, that’s something else than a black hole.

There is evidence for the B.B. in the form of Cosmic Background Radiation. Evidence that god exists eludes us. I have a stronger case than you.
[/quote]

No. A black hole converts matter to energy. It doesn’t simply rearrange it.

Plus the BB is not the same as an infinite universe and existence is observational evidence of an external cause. There I have as much evidence as you.

BUT an infinite universe isn’t really an answer to how things started anyway.[/quote]

Back-up for a moment here: i’m not saying the singularity that existed prior to the BB was a black hole. Black holes are thought to be hugely dense cores of dead stars.

What i’m saying is that, due to entropy, after a very long time, our universe is likely to collaps back onto itself, and all the energy [matter] is not destroyed but “re-ordered” until/after expansion.

This cycle, which btw is foretold in the Veda’s, of expansion and collaps, is as far as i am concerned uncaused and eternal.

[forlife]

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
What comprises space if there is no matter, antimatter, or energy present?

Isn’t it possible the unpredictability of the double slit experiment is caused by randomness rather than ignorance?[/quote]

What’s unpredictable about the double slit experiment? If you shoot enough electrons at it the slits you will get a interference pattern every time with out fail…That’s pretty damn predictable.[/quote]

The pattern is predictable, but the fate of each individual electron is completely unpredictable.[/quote]

Sure… but, the predictability of the pattern implies a statistical predictability of the fate of each individual electron. Just because we have not determined how to measure or define this predictability, does not mean it does not exist. [/quote]

That’s true, but a statistical probability is comprised of a combination of known variance and chance variance. If there were zero randomness, the statistical probability would be 1. Of course, that chance variance might be other causal factors that we can’t currently comprehend, but then again it could be true randomness. I’m not sure that we can rule out either possibility, given what we currently know.

[DoubleDuce]

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
If i reformat my harddrive i destroyed the information stored on it, yes. But what i’ve really done is simply re-arrange the magnetic particles on the disk.

I shouldn’t have used the word “information”, my bad. But the singularity we’re talking about; the universe collapsing onto itself in to an infinitly dense point containing all the energy there is, that’s something else than a black hole.

There is evidence for the B.B. in the form of Cosmic Background Radiation. Evidence that god exists eludes us. I have a stronger case than you.
[/quote]

No. A black hole converts matter to energy. It doesn’t simply rearrange it.

Plus the BB is not the same as an infinite universe and existence is observational evidence of an external cause. There I have as much evidence as you.

BUT an infinite universe isn’t really an answer to how things started anyway.[/quote]

Back-up for a moment here: i’m not saying the singularity that existed prior to the BB was a black hole. Black holes are thought to be hugely dense cores of dead stars.

What i’m saying is that, due to entropy, after a very long time, our universe is likely to collaps back onto itself, and all the energy [matter] is not destroyed but “re-ordered” until/after expansion.

This cycle, which btw is foretold in the Veda’s, of expansion and collaps, is as far as i am concerned uncaused and eternal.

[/quote]

Okay, once again, I was under the impression we were past escape velocity and would not contract again.

[DoubleDuce]

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
What comprises space if there is no matter, antimatter, or energy present?

Isn’t it possible the unpredictability of the double slit experiment is caused by randomness rather than ignorance?[/quote]

What’s unpredictable about the double slit experiment? If you shoot enough electrons at it the slits you will get a interference pattern every time with out fail…That’s pretty damn predictable.[/quote]

The pattern is predictable, but the fate of each individual electron is completely unpredictable.[/quote]

Sure… but, the predictability of the pattern implies a statistical predictability of the fate of each individual electron. Just because we have not determined how to measure or define this predictability, does not mean it does not exist. [/quote]

That’s true, but a statistical probability is comprised of a combination of known variance and chance variance. If there were zero randomness, the statistical probability would be 1. Of course, that chance variance might be other causal factors that we can’t currently comprehend, but then again it could be true randomness. I’m not sure that we can rule out either possibility, given what we currently know.
[/quote]

An inability to measure/predict is different than lack of cause. we can’t see certain events to learn about them, but that doesn’t mean they don’t have a cause.

[ephrem]

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

Back-up for a moment here: i’m not saying the singularity that existed prior to the BB was a black hole. Black holes are thought to be hugely dense cores of dead stars.

What i’m saying is that, due to entropy, after a very long time, our universe is likely to collaps back onto itself, and all the energy [matter] is not destroyed but “re-ordered” until/after expansion.

This cycle, which btw is foretold in the Veda’s, of expansion and collaps, is as far as i am concerned uncaused and eternal.

[/quote]

Okay, once again, I was under the impression we were past escape velocity and would not contract again.[/quote]

Well, to be honest, that’s just my take on it. There are 6 different possibilities: Ultimate fate of the universe - Wikipedia

[forlife]

DoubleDuce, that’s what I just said. It could be due to other causes beyond our understanding, or it could be due to chance. Given what we currently know, I don’t believe we can rule out either possibility.

Did you see my question on free will? Do you believe it exists and if so, how do you reconcile that belief with your assertion that everything is predetermined by what came before?

[DoubleDuce]

[quote]forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce, that’s what I just said. It could be due to other causes beyond our understanding, or it could be due to chance. Given what we currently know, I don’t believe we can rule out either possibility.

Did you see my question on free will? Do you believe it exists and if so, how do you reconcile that belief with your assertion that everything is predetermined by what came before?[/quote]

lol.

Not seeing and not being able to assign cause aren’t the same thing. A magician might do a trick under a handkerchief, but we can still figure out what happened under there. We can’t observe certain aspects of the universe, but we do understand part of what happens back there. The electron experiment proves there is a handkerchief, not that magic is happening.

Free will is interesting. scientifically, there is no free will as far as I know, but then again I’m full of cognitive dissonance.

[forlife]

How do you know that chance isn’t playing a role? Maybe it isn’t, but maybe it is. Can you prove otherwise?