Let's talk about the "Big Bang" (theory)

[Polymath257]

What a minute, where do you get the idea that the BGV very little support in cosmology? Hahaha.

Lets take a look at the wiki link on the theorem...

Borde–Guth–Vilenkin theorem - Wikipedia.

"Alternative models, where the average expansion of the universe throughout its history does not hold, have been proposed under the notions of emergent spacetime, eternal inflation, and cyclic models."

Newsflash: When you have your peers offering alternative models in order to disprove your theorem...that, in itself, is the support.

Um, they are giving models where the BGV theorem does not apply. Which makes your overall argument invalid.

Here's a place to start:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/0705.2730.pdf

This gives a cyclic universe scenario that *both* avoids the assumptions of BGV and also avoids the issues of the SLOT.

Oh, and it includes an infinite regress in time. it builds on a previous paper:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0610213.pdf

This shows that pretty much every part of your argument is invalid. Good luck showing this isn't a plausible scenario.

 

[PruePhillip]

Two points:

1. So you admit that faith is a bad way to get knowledge?

2. There is a HUGE difference between the two.

A. We *know* that quantum mechanics is valid in the universe we know.

B. We *know* that some quantum version of gravity will be necessary at a sufficiently high energy level (corresponding to the Planck mass).

C. We *know* that incorporating quantum mechanics can eliminate singularities in classical models.

D. We *know* that the BGV paper relies on reasoning based on classical models to give the singularities it predicts.

E. We do NOT know which version of quantum gravity is correct.

.

All of the above has absolutely NOTHING to do with your faith and the meaning of your existance.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Hmm…since I agree that the universe cannot be infinite in its past, I fail to see how your mention of the wiki article hurts the case that I’ve been making.

You said that in BGV the universe cannot be infinite, full stop.
This is incorrect.

What is correct, is the that it can not be infinite into the past. It must have space-time boundary in the past.
It says nothing about the future.

Point?

That it could be infinite into the future while being finite into the past.

If God does not exist (your position), then time MUST be past-eternal…otherwise, how do you explain the origins of all space-time??

Ow boy. Talk about an argument from ignorance / incredulity.

I don't know the origins of space-time. Nobody does. Neither do you.
Your religiously inspired combo of a false dichotomy and an argument from ignorance / incredulity is just that... fallacious religious nonsense.

Are they?

Yes.

Here is my “theory of everything”.

Gen 1:1

“In the BEGINNING, GOD created the heavens and the earth”.

That is my theory of everything.

I know.
So what are you doing trying to discuss science?

And the God hypothesis has the explanatory power needed to explain the effect (the origins of STEM).

Not a hypothesis because it's not testable.
It explains nothing because it's just a bare claim.

I think you should look up what "explanatory power" actually is.

 

[joelr]

Interesting. I am not sure how Mark updated a book found in Essene and traditional Jewish texts.
The temple was destroyed twice - Babylon and Rome. Now which is Daniel speaking of?

This is exactly when the Hebrew redactor was writing. 167 BC.

"Antiochus IV (Epiphanes), the king of Syria, captured Jerusalem in 167 BC and desecrated the Temple"

"The "prince who is to come" in verse 26b is typically seen by critical scholars as a reference to Antiochus IV,[65] though Jason and Menelaus have also been suggested.[74][65] Hence, the "troops of the prince" are thought to be either the Seleucid troops that settled in Jerusalem (cf. Dan 11:31; 1 Macc 1:29–40) or the Jewish hellenizers.[75][65] The reference to "troops" that will "destroy the city and the sanctuary" in verse 26b is somewhat problematic since neither Jerusalem nor the temple were actually destroyed,[76] though the city was arguably rendered desolate and the temple defiled (cf. 1 Macc 1:46; 2 Macc 6:2),[75][76] and Daniel's language of destruction "seems excessive".[77]"

Prophecy of Seventy Weeks - Wikipedia

Daniel 9:25
“And after the sixty-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself; And the people of the prince who is to come Shall
destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end of it shall be with a flood, And till the end of the war desolations are determined."

The Messiah will be destroyed, but not for himself. In other words he shall die for others.
The people of the prince are the Romans and auxillaries, under the command of the Roman emperor's son
The end will be the end of Israel and it will come with many flooding the country
War - won't be a 'Special Military Operation' - the THREE wars combined were the worst war Rome ever fought
Desolations are determined - that word 'determined' speaks of what Josephus spoke of - the coming doom of the Jewish people

We can't draw conclusions from this book because every man and his dog had hand written copies, long before one copy became the cannon. I love it for the spiritual and Messianic messages.

They cover some Daniel in the apocalypse lecture -

Apocalypses and Apocalypticism

33:50

Comes into Judaism from Persian religion. Messianic savior myths also come from Persia. Prior to this there also is no cosmic devil. This comes from Zoroastrianism. Physical resurrection of people and a new world at the end of times battle comes into Judaism from Zoroastrianism.


37:00 during the 2nd Temple Period God becomes more cosmic in scope, not walking around wrestling with people. Visions are attributed to angels and ancient authorities - Daniel, Enoch, Adam…

Daniel

43:53 Daniel attributed to a prophet of the Babylonian period but actually written between 167 and 164 BC. Daniels visions from Gabriel are very specific and accurate up through the year 167 BC and then fail dramatically after 164 BC. Which illustrates the date.


Daniel believes they are at the end times and are totally wrong.

Ezekiel’s prediction of the worlds end failed so the author of Daniel reinterpreted the timeframe so the end would occur in his day.


Danilel’s prediction failed so John the Revelator reinterpreted the timeframe so the world would end in his day. His failure resulted in ongoing recalculations.


Apocalyptic authors suffered from lack of perspective, falsely believing themselves to have been living at the end times.

Their readers share the same lack of perspective, falsely imagining that the text refer to the readers time (when they actually referred to the authors time)


For centuries people have been reading Revelation as future history. Often convinced the signs point to their own time. This is called temporal narcissism.

1:03:40


Joachim of Fiore used Revelation to predict the world would end 1260 AD.


1:08:03 Newton spent equal time studying the Bible to predict the future and inventing calculus. His future calculations were all wrong.


In Revelation - no mention of the Rapture, no anti-Christ, not a message of fear but hope


Revelation is misread as future history. War, famine, pestilence and death are already loosed on Earth. Revelation envisions a world where they will be eliminated.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I have a universe which began from nothing…so there exists an entity with the power to create from nothing. Nothing within the physical realm has the power to create from nothing (FLOT). I have a universe that is fine-tuned with mathematical precision, from the fine-tuning of the initial conditions of the universe…to the constants and values of certain cosmic parameters…to the fine-tuning complexity of the human cell (DNA), and each cell is more complex than a space shuttle. So, if the space shuttle requires intelligent design, then so does the humans which created it.

Complexity does not indicate design.
Arguments from incredulity don't either.
Neither do arguments from ignorance.
Neither is drawing the bullseye around the arrow.

I also have the the origins of consciousness, which can only come from a super-consciousness

Bare claim. Doesn't follow.
The actual evidence only supports that consciousness is produced by a physical brain.

…because thoughts/mental states aren’t physical…

Except that they are. They are brain states. Brains are physical.

and I have the existence of objective moral values/duties which can only come from an objective law-giver.

I have objective moral values / duties that don't require a "law-giver".
They only require the understanding that morality is about the well-being of sentient beings.

Yeah, that is the highlights.

Fallacious and religious from start to finish.

I don’t know about that…it may be better for you if God did not exist…because of you know, the whole Hell thing and all.

The same goes for you and the thousands of gods you don't believe in.
I'm not scared of monsters under my bed. Your christian hell keeps me awake at night about as much as you worry about not going to whalhalla or not being able to pay the boatman to cross the Styx river.

I follow evidence. I stay clear of boogey man make belief.

No, they aren’t. Infinite regression problem. You know, the problem that you claim really isn’t a problem, considering the universe to be finite and all?

Apparently you missed the quotes. And/or you don't understand why they are there.
You should read up on what the multi-verse actually is supposed to be that is predicted by models like inflation.

You claim to "know more then me", but then you go around showing at every turn that you don't.

Logical fallacies such as?

See above.
An obvious one would be the argument from ignorance whenever you claim that "complex, therefor created".
If you would try and explain how you get from "complex" to "therefor design", the argument from ignorance / incredulity will quickly become apparent.


Go ahead, try. How do you get from "this is complex" to "therefor it is intentionally designed"

LOL. So, let me get this straight..

“Most models of inflation do lead to a multiverse”.

In other words..

“Some models of inflation do NOT lead to a multiverse”.

So basically, it depends on the model.

Yes, you successfully repeated what the article said.
Most models of inflation lead to a multi-verse and it is, to quote the article, hard to come up with an inflation model that doesn't.

Second, as I articulated above, even if a multiverse does exist, that only pushes the question of origins back one step further…so now you have to explain the origins of the multiverse

I guess the same logic applies to your god?

…and according to the BGV theorem, if a multiverse does exist, then the multiverse itself would have to have a beginning because a multiverse does not violate the BGV theorem.

The BGV deals with an expanding space time. The universe.
It doesn't deal with any particular multi-verse.
BGV is really just a statement about the universe, which is true if the assumptions hold.
Those assumptions have to do with an expanding space-time. A universe.
So you are misrepresenting it here.

Multiverse - Wikipedia

Hmm, not much there in the way of evidence for the theory, is there? No, it isn’t. Also, below the “search for evidence portion”, you have the “proponents and skeptics” of the theory…and guess what? For every cosmologist who is a proponent of the theory, there is one that is a skeptic of the theory.

In other words, not all cosmologists are on board with the theory…if the evidence was pouring in like that, you would think all cosmologists would be on board with it…but they are not.

Did I ever claim otherwise?
More evidence that you don't actually read the posts you reply to with attention.

The math in some inflationary models, but not all.

In most. To the point that one needs to go out of his way to make it not so.
In general, as the article stated, if inflation is there then the multi-verse is there and vice versa.

Hmmm…Paul Davies, what do you think about all of this??

“Indeed, invoking an infinity of unseen universes to explain the unusual features of the one we do see is just as ad hoc as invoking an unseen Creator. The multiverse theory may be dressed up in scientific language, but in essence, it requires the same leap of faith.” (Same wiki article)

Again misrepresenting it.
Nobody is INVOKING anything.

The inflation model just tries to model the early stages of the expansion of the universe.
It's the model which then spits out a multi-verse. No "invoking" is going on.
Many scientists don't even like their own inflation model because they in fact don't like the idea of the multi-verse. Just like Einstein didn't like his theory because he didn't like the idea of black holes.

Would you say Einstein "invoked" black holes? No, he did not. He modeled the behavior of light and gravity and the model he came up with just spit out black holes.

Just like inflation models try to model the early expansion of the universe and the models they come up with just happen to spit out a multi-verse.

And again, the multiverse may/may not exist, but now it exists only as a possibility…and possibilities are not evidence.

Evidence for models that predict X, is indirect evidence for X.

Before we observed black holes, they were only theoretical. But all the evidence in support of relativity that we COULD obtain, provided indirect evidence for the existence of black holes. Even though we never observed one until much later.

 

[PruePhillip]

This is exactly when the Hebrew redactor was writing. 167 BC.

"Antiochus IV (Epiphanes), the king of Syria, captured Jerusalem in 167 BC and desecrated the Temple"

There's a huge amount of copy and paste here - stuff that's been around for years.
I will copy and paste Daniel itself, using the New King James Version

And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

The Messiah shall be cut off (destroyed)
but not for himself (he didn't die for himself but for others)
the people of the prince - Titus' people, the son of the Emperor Vespasian
shall come - from the north through Galilee and the south through Egpt
shall destroy the city - Rome didn't desecrate anything, it levelled Jerusalem
and the sanctuary - as Jesus warned, not one stone upon another (you can still see the huge temple blocks the Romans pushed into the streets below)
and the end with a flood - a flood of people, the Roman campaign was huge
unto the end of the war - this war was in three stages over some 50 or so years, about two million Jews died, the rest exiled
desolations are determined - these desolations continued for 1800 years until the Jews were allowed to return to Israel and take back Jerusalem.

WAS DANIEL WRITTEN AFTER 1967 AD ?????

 

[Polymath257]

All of the above has absolutely NOTHING to do with your faith and the meaning of your existance.

True. And irrelevant to the discussion.

 

[Venni_Vetti_Vecci]

An example of its failure:

Second law broken - Nature

This is a classic example of saying a whole lot without saying NOTHING.

Please explain why, if the SLOT can be broken, then why doesn't that apply to the universe as a whole...of which is currently losing its usable energy and will ultimately suffer a heat death, precisely BECAUSE of the SLOT?

 

[PruePhillip]

True. And irrelevant to the discussion.

True. But there's a lot implied with Big Bang - such discussions are a way of attacking other beliefs, and when challenged about these beliefs you say, 'Oh, we aren't even talking about that.'

 

[Polymath257]

This is a classic example of saying a whole lot without saying NOTHING.

Please explain why, if the SLOT can be broken, then why doesn't that apply to the universe as a whole...of which is currently losing its usable energy and will ultimately suffer a heat death, precisely BECAUSE of the SLOT?

Once again, the SLOT is a *statistical* law: it is one of averages and expectation values. But random fluctuations *do* occur and they can violate the SLOT. These fluctuations are much more common in small samples (a standard aspect of statistics), but can happen in larger samples as well (they are just less likely).

The linked article observed violations of SLOT in samples involving thousands of molecules. This is small enough that statistical fluctuations are common enough to be observed. For larger samples, the probability decreases rapidly. For a sample as large as a million molecules, the probabilities are very small (but still non-zero).

Once again, there is the notion of a Poincare recurrence time. This is the time in which a sample will return to close to its original state (thereby ensuring a decrease of entropy at some stages). For a macroscopic sample, this recurrence time is *incredibly* long, but still finite. In an infinite future (or past), entropy is *expected* to cycle, not to uniformly increase.

Once again, the SLOT of NOT a fundamental law: it is a statistical law based on expected values for the distribution of energy, etc. It *can* be violated simply because statistical laws are probabilistic and not absolute. It *was* violated in the linked article (although in the way predicted by statistical mechanics).

 

[Polymath257]

True. But there's a lot implied with Big Bang - such discussions are a way of attacking other beliefs, and when challenged about these beliefs you say, 'Oh, we aren't even talking about that.'

the Big bang is a scientific issue: what does the data say and how does the theory relate to said data? Extensions of the Standard Big Bang model (inflationary scenarios, string theory, quantum gravity) are speculative, but are still scientific and based on reconciling what we know about gravity, particle physics, and quantum mechanics.

In this, questions of faith are simply irrelevant.

Now, if you want to *speculate* about causality outside of the universe/multiverse or time before the same, that is your right. But without evidence or a more detailed theory, it is of little value to the science.

 

[Venni_Vetti_Vecci]

Two points:

1. So you admit that faith is a bad way to get knowledge?

Faith is trusting what you know (or have reasons) to believe is true.

2. There is a HUGE difference between the two.

A. We *know* that quantum mechanics is valid in the universe we know.

B. We *know* that some quantum version of gravity will be necessary at a sufficiently high energy level (corresponding to the Planck mass).

C. We *know* that incorporating quantum mechanics can eliminate singularities in classical models.

D. We *know* that the BGV paper relies on reasoning based on classical models to give the singularities it predicts.

E. We do NOT know which version of quantum gravity is correct.

So, yes, physicists are working on it. It is something that needs to be resolved (we know it is necessary) and we also know that it *can* negate the conditions of the BGV theorem. We do NOT know which of various quantum theories of gravity are actually true.

That is very, very different than waiting around for the second coming.

Ok, and we *know* that infinite regression is absolutely positively impossible.

And we *know* that quantum mechanics cannot give you infinite regress.

And we *know* that since infinite regress cannot be achieved, we *know* that a First Cause (uncaused cause) is absolutely positively necessary.

No, abiogenesis is an active area of scientific research.

Well, holla at me when abiogenesis becomes an active area of scientific FACT.

Until thing, you are relying on the unseen, the unproven.

In other words; faith.

Evolution is an established scientific explanation.

Sure, it is a scientific explanation to those who already believe the theory.

Just like Jesus' Resurrection is a theological explanation to those of us who already believe in Christianity.

See how that works?

You are essentially correct here. FLOT, like SLOT, only applies within the universe. In particular, FLOT, like all conservation laws, relates the amount of some quantity at two different times, saying it will be the same. For this to hold, time has to actually exist.

Thats whats up.

Your philosophical arguments fail because of simple misunderstandings, including the strange notion of traversing time.

Did you jump from age 10 to 21 without traversing through ages 11-20?

And allowing for an infinite regress has a long history philosophically as well. Newtonian mechanics used such an infinite time. The theological notion of eternity is essentially an infinite time into the past, etc.

?

Actually, a spatially infinite universe is allowed by general relativity. It is what happens if space is either flat or negatively curved. At this point, it looks like space is flat, which would imply an infinite space.

Isn't general relativity classical? And didnt we establish that classical spacetime is geodesically incomplete in its past with the BGV theorem?

And doesn't "infinite space" in the context you are using it implies infinite in its future, but finite in its past, which just so happens+ to coincide with arguments against infinite regress, which says the same thing?

It does if time is finite into the past.

I agree, time is finite into the past. That is kinda the whole point.

No, you are failing to grasp that there is no inconsistency with 'the universe has existed for all time' and 'the universe is finite into the past' if time is ALSO finite into the past.

Here is what I am able to grasp..

The universe and time, BEGAN TO EXIST.

I disagree. The phrase 'began to exist' implies a process through time that is simply not the case. They had a beginning, but they did not 'begin' to exist.

Not necessarily. The universe and time began to exist simultaneously. One did not precede the other.

Again, the ball on the cushion analogy.

Yes. But it does NOT mean it 'began to exist'. And it definitely does NOT imply that it has a cause. This is especially true since

ALL CAUSES HAPPEN THROUGH TIME.

Ok, so if a bowling ball was resting on a cushion for eternity...and the indentation on the cushion was also there from eternity...question..

How many seconds, minutes, hours (or whatever time of reference you want to use) have elapsed since the indentation was made?

After all, if all causes happened through time as you contend, then there should be an answer to this question, shouldn't there?

Modern physics says you might be wrong. If geodesics cannot be extended into the future, then time might be finite into the future. It is really no more paradoxical than being finite into the past. And it would happen for similar geometrical reasons.

Oh, the future will go on forever...that part is irreversible. That part is potentially infinite.

It is the past which cannot be infinite.

I'd be careful criticizing the knowledge of others when you are showing similar difficulties.

Im no expert, but far from a novice.

That there is a point past which time cannot be extended into the past.

I agree, and if it cant be extended beyond a certain point, then there needs to be an explanation as to why it began from certain point.

Sorry, but you seem to not grasp that 'finite into the past' means 'no before'.

I agree..no temporal before...but a causal before, clearly.

 

[Polymath257]

If the universe does not have an infinite regress problem and is thus finite in its past (had a beginning), then that would suggest that the initiator of this effect (the beginning of space-time) could not itself be a product of space-time.

Why would you assume there is an 'initiator'? Why would you assume that there is a 'before the universe'?

Now, how many times am I going to have to say this?

If God does not exist (your position), then time MUST be past-eternal…otherwise, how do you explain the origins of all space-time??

You are fixated on a temporal description. But the universe is a universe that contains ALL space AND time. There is no time outside of the universe (or multiverse). So the whole question of 'origin' becomes moot.

Here is my “theory of everything”.

Gen 1:1

“In the BEGINNING, GOD created the heavens and the earth”.

That is my theory of everything.

Great! OK, let's look at this 'theory' (it's actually at most a hypothesis, but I'll overlook that for a bit).

Precisely what does your theory predict about the temperature fluctuations in the cosmic background radiation?

Precisely what does your theory predict about the abundances of the various elements?

Precisely what fundamental particles does your theory predict and what are their properties?

What does your theory have to say about galaxy formation in the early universe?

What does your theory have to say about gravitational lensing?

What does your theory have to say about when the first stars formed?

What does your theory have to say about the half-life of protons?

What does your theory have to say about the imbalance of matter and anti-matter and its origins?

What does your theory have to say about the properties of neutrinos?

Does your theory predict the existence of axions?

I can go on (and on), but if you want to claim you have an overall theory, these are the types of questions you have to give answers for that can be verified.

Good luck!

First of all, none of the models addresses origins.

False. There are many theories that specifically address the origins of our universe.

The universe is all space, time, energy, and matter (STEM), and if STEM began to exist, then whatever gave STEM its beginning could not itself be a product of STEM.

What makes you think there is something that 'gave STEM'?

There is no model (nor can it be) which explains the absolute origins of STEM…as you cant use STEM to explain the origins of STEM.

Yes, the ultimate mystery is why there is something rather than nothing. Invoking deities does not address that mystery.

This is elementary logic.

An external cause is needed, otherwise you are arguing in a circle.

You are assuming there needs to be a cause.

The problem with this assumption is that *all causes are in STEM*. We have observed NO causes outside of STEM. There is no reason to assume causality even makes sense outside of STEM.

And the God hypothesis has the explanatory power needed to explain the effect (the origins of STEM).

Really? Please explain how the God hypothesis explains the nature of neutrinos.

Please explain how the God hypothesis explains the distribution of elements in the universe (how does it predict that hydrogen would be the most common element?)

In fact, please explain how the God hypothesis predicts *any* properties of the observed universe other than its existence.

All these models do is push the question of origins back one step further…oh, you believe in the multiverse. Well, what created the multiverse? It can’t be infinite…oh, the multiverse came from a quantum region? Well, where did the quantum reason come from?

And, at most, you just push the question back one more step. You need to ask what was the origin or cause of your deity. And, no, you don't get to plead a special case for your deity if you don't accept a special case for the universe itself (which we at least know exists).

You can’t have an infinite amount of cause/effects relations..so, you need an uncaused cause. It is absolutely, positively necessary…and you have that with God.

Really? Precisely how do you know that God is uncaused? And precisely why can't there be an infinite sequence of causes? And how do you jump from an uncaused cause to an intelligent designer? And if God is eternal, why suddenly decide to make a universe one day?

Your proposed answer to the questions simply doesn't answer the questions. At most it pushes then back one step. But it does so in a way that is NOT motivated by what we know (unlike the multiverse, which *is* motivated by our best theories).

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Sure, it is a scientific explanation to those who already believe the theory.

Just like Jesus' Resurrection is a theological explanation to those of us who already believe in Christianity.

See how that works?

The only thing I see working here, is blatant intellectual dishonesty and even taking pride in it.

It's quite pathetic tbh.

Ok, so if a bowling ball was resting on a cushion for eternity...and the indentation on the cushion was also there from eternity...question..

Both are imaginary impossible things and indents are the result of gravity pulling things down. Through time.

How many seconds, minutes, hours (or whatever time of reference you want to use) have elapsed since the indentation was made?

Your analogy makes no sense.
You need space for bowlingballs to exist on cushions. You need a universe for space. And a universe with space comes with time. You also need gravity for the indent. So you need another third object more massive then both the cushion and the ball so that both would fall toward it - creating the indent.

NONE of your imaginary hypothetical here is a proper analogy.

After all, if all causes happened through time as you contend, then there should be an answer to this question, shouldn't there?

The answer is that your "analogy" is nonsensical and imaginary.

I agree..no temporal before...but a causal before, clearly.

So, a married bachelor.

 

[Polymath257]

Faith is trusting what you know (or have reasons) to believe is true.

So it is really the same as confidence? And is thereby based on observation, testing, and reasoning?

Ok, and we *know* that infinite regression is absolutely positively impossible.

No, we do rnot know this. In fact, there is no logical problem with an infinite regress.

Your notion of 'traversing time' is part of your basic mistake. We do NOT move through time. Instead, because of entropy effects, we only remember the past. And at each point in time, we remember the past for that point in time.

In essence, you are using the A theory of time when physics uniformly uses the B theory of time. there is no 'motion in time': there are only different time slices and what we can remember from each.

And we *know* that quantum mechanics cannot give you infinite regress.

And we *know* that since infinite regress cannot be achieved, we *know* that a First Cause (uncaused cause) is absolutely positively necessary.

No, at most it would prove that uncaused causes are necessary. it does NOT prove that all such uncaused causes are the same thing.

And, in fact, under quantum mechanics, MOST quantum level events are uncaused, so give actual, physical examples of uncaused causes. There isn't just one: there are multitudes.

Well, holla at me when abiogenesis becomes an active area of scientific FACT.

Until thing, you are relying on the unseen, the unproven.

In other words; faith.

I'm not relying on anything other than the simple fact that life is a chemical phenomenon. No atom in your body is alive. it is the organization of those atoms that makes you alive. That organization is a chemical structure.

Sure, it is a scientific explanation to those who already believe the theory.

No, it is a scientific explanation because that is where the evidence leads. Those who were/are skeptical can look at the evidence. if they are not convinced, they can raise their objections in the scientific literature and have the issue debated. But, i would recommend not bringing up old arguments without having new evidence.

Just like Jesus' Resurrection is a theological explanation to those of us who already believe in Christianity.

Once again, present the evidence to a skeptic (say a Moslem or an atheist). Debate the evidence and see what happens.

See how that works?

Conspiracy theories based on the dishonesty of scientists don't hold much water, sorry.

Thats whats up.

So, the FLOT only applies when time exists, in other words only *within* the universe. It doesn't even make sense outside of it.

Did you jump from age 10 to 21 without traversing through ages 11-20?

My 21 year old self has/had memories of some ages between 10 and 21. My 10 year old self did not. All of the ages between existed. But I did NOT traverse the times. They are simply different slices of my time line.

?

You didn't understand what I said? How long has God been around in your theology?

Isn't general relativity classical? And didnt we establish that classical spacetime is geodesically incomplete in its past with the BGV theorem?

Yes. General relativity is geodesically incomplete into the past.

And doesn't "infinite space" in the context you are using it implies infinite in its future, but finite in its past, which just so happens+ to coincide with arguments against infinite regress, which says the same thing?

You were failing to understand when @TagliatelliMonster said the universe can be infinite while being finite into the past.

I agree, time is finite into the past. That is kinda the whole point.

In other words, there was no 'before the universe'. There is no 'cause' of the universe (because causes require time).

Here is what I am able to grasp..

The universe and time, BEGAN TO EXIST.

Wrong. That phrase 'began to exist' implies a temporal change that is NOT what happened. The universe had a beginning (possibly). But that does NOT imply there was anything 'before' that made it. In fact, the fact of geodesic incompleteness *proves* there is no 'before': it is precisely what it means to be geodesically incomplete.

Not necessarily. The universe and time began to exist simultaneously. One did not precede the other.

Good! And since causes only happen in time, that implies none of these had a cause.

Again, the ball on the cushion analogy.

And in this, the indentation is not caused. Just to use your logic: did the indentation begin to exist? No. So it doesn't need a cause.

Ok, so if a bowling ball was resting on a cushion for eternity...and the indentation on the cushion was also there from eternity...question..

How many seconds, minutes, hours (or whatever time of reference you want to use) have elapsed since the indentation was made?

The indentation was not 'made'; it always existed.

After all, if all causes happened through time as you contend, then there should be an answer to this question, shouldn't there?

In this case, the indentation has no cause.

Oh, the future will go on forever...that part is irreversible. That part is potentially infinite.

Once again, a problematic view of time. Time is part of the geometry of spacetime. It is either finite or infinite. You are using the A theory and physics uniformly uses the B theory.
It is the past which cannot be infinite.

Im no expert, but far from a novice.

I agree, and if it cant be extended beyond a certain point, then there needs to be an explanation as to why it began from certain point.

No more than an explanation of why latitudes start at the south pole.

I agree..no temporal before...but a causal before, clearly.

ALL causes are temporal.

 

[Polymath257]

This is a classic example of saying a whole lot without saying NOTHING.

Please explain why, if the SLOT can be broken, then why doesn't that apply to the universe as a whole...of which is currently losing its usable energy and will ultimately suffer a heat death, precisely BECAUSE of the SLOT?

Here's an example you might be able to understand.

Suppose that we flip fair coins. So H and T both have a probability of 50%.

On average, we expect half the coins to give H and half to give T.

If I flip 5 coins, is it possible I will get all H?

Absolutely. In fact, it happens 1/32 times. So it happens often enough to be observed. If you flip 5 coins a total of 1000 times, you will see many examples of 5H coming up.

But, now, suppose you flip 100 coins. is it possible to get 100H?

Again, absolutely. The probability is much smaller, though. If you conduct this experiment a million times, it is very *unlikely* you will ever see a sequence of 100H. it isn't impossible. it is just very unlikely.

Now, with 100 flips, the *expected* number of H and T is 50 each.

is it possible that you will see some sequences with 45 H and 55T? Absolutely. it isn't even that rare. So getting 45% H and 55%T in 100 flips is pretty common.

Now, suppose you flip 1 million coins. it is not pretty *uncommon* that you will see 45% H and 55% T. the standard deviation *as a percentage* has decreased. And the probability of getting ALL H in this case is incredibly low (but still non-zero).

On the other hand, it is very likely that you will see situations with more than 10 T than H.

Entropy is like this. It is a statistical law. it is based on averages an expectations. For small samples, it is even fairly likely it will be violated (like getting 45T and 55H in a sequence of 100 flips).

The larger the sample, though, the smaller the probability of the same percentage of violation.

The point is that any *macroscopic* sample contains a HUGE number of particles (look up Avogadro's number). So even small percentage violations are very, very unlikely.

But they are still *possible*.

 

[PruePhillip]

the Big bang is a scientific issue: what does the data say and how does the theory relate to said data? Extensions of the Standard Big Bang model (inflationary scenarios, string theory, quantum gravity) are speculative, but are still scientific and based on reconciling what we know about gravity, particle physics, and quantum mechanics.

In this, questions of faith are simply irrelevant.

Now, if you want to *speculate* about causality outside of the universe/multiverse or time before the same, that is your right. But without evidence or a more detailed theory, it is of little value to the science.

Lecturer - we have no evidence there ever was a guy called Moses
and Daniel wasn't written in the sixth Century BC but the second century
and we question the reality of Jesus
and it's obvious there's evolution
and it all began spontaneously, out of nothing and nowhere and no reason

Interloper - Excust me, I do believe in a creator God

Lecturer - Please don't change the subject and bring religion into the conversation.

 

[Polymath257]

Lecturer - we have no evidence there ever was a guy called Moses
and Daniel wasn't written in the sixth Century BC but the second century
and we question the reality of Jesus
and it's obvious there's evolution
and it all began spontaneously, out of nothing and nowhere and no reason

Interloper - Excust me, I do believe in a creator God

Lecturer - Please don't change the subject and bring religion into the conversation.

And let me put it this way: in a lecture, why would bringing your beliefs in a deity be relevant?

Your *belief* is irrelevant to the evidence for Moses, or the evidence for when David was written, or whether evolution occurred, or what the evidence points to for the Big Bang.

Even in questioning the reality of Jesus, the question is one of evidence, not of belief in a creator God.

So, yes, I would agree with the Lecturer in your skit: don't change the subject to your beliefs as opposed to what the evidence is.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Lecturer - we have no evidence there ever was a guy called Moses
and Daniel wasn't written in the sixth Century BC but the second century
and we question the reality of Jesus
and it's obvious there's evolution
and it all began spontaneously, out of nothing and nowhere and no reason

Interloper - Excust me, I do believe in a creator God

Lecturer - Please don't change the subject and bring religion into the conversation.

Why would a "creator God" make a difference unless that God was dishonest?

There is actually evidence against Moses at least as told in the Bible and no evidence for him. There is endless evidence for evolution and no evidence against it. Very few question the "reality of Jesus". What they do not believe are the mythical tales of Jesus.

And I see we have the favorite creationist strawman. Just because a God did not do it does not mean "no reason etc.".

When a person cannot debate the evidence this is the sort of rant that they go off on.

 

[Venni_Vetti_Vecci]

Um, they are giving models where the BGV theorem does not apply. Which makes your overall argument invalid.

Here's a place to start:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/0705.2730.pdf This gives a cyclic universe scenario that *both* avoids the assumptions of BGV and also avoids the issues of the SLOT

If they are giving models where the BGV theorem does not apply, then that in itself is a testament to how strong the theorem is.

Second, again, "what if" or "perhaps maybe" scenarios are not evidence...it is speculation.

Third, that paper is from 2007, and if the implications of the paper were true, then why do I have a quote from Vilenkin from 2015, where he stated..

Excerpt..

“We have no viable models of an eternal universe. The BGV theorem gives reason to believe that such models simply cannot be constructed.”

Under the BGV subtitle in the link..

The Beginning of the Universe | Alexander Vilenkin | Inference

And just to put icing on the cake...in the same article above...Vilenkin actually addressed that model..

Excerpt..

"The problem with this scenario is that, on average, the volume of the universe still grows, and thus the BGV theorem can be applied. This leads immediately to the conclusion that a cyclic universe cannot be past-eternal."

And if you check the references, your article relies heavily on Steinhardt and Neil Turok and is basically the same model..a cyclic universe.

Vilenkin has already addressed that outdated proposal.

Next...

Haha.

Oh, and it includes an infinite regress in time. it builds on a previous paper:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0610213.pdf

Cyclic universes have already been dealt with, sir...and they do not avoid the theorem, unless you have any new developments with those scenarios within the past..eh, 5 years?

Guess what: you don't.

This shows that pretty much every part of your argument is invalid. Good luck showing this isn't a plausible scenario.

Looks to me like I just did.

No charge for the lesson.