1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

If infininte time and infinite universes.....

Discussion in 'General Religious Debates' started by Link, May 22, 2020.

  1. Link

    Link Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2019
    Messages:
    1,541
    Ratings:
    +466
    Religion:
    Twelver seeker
    The teleological arguments makes use that we really really really lucked out that it's more rational to assume a designer as what are the chances everything was set right to this extent.

    A way to refute this is to give infinite time or multiverses in which the each universe ofthe multiverse expand and contract, and eventually you get that exact ratio.

    There is an actual problem with this. From what I was reading - universes - which is the guess that ours will eventually get to this, will come to a stand still. It becomes void and everything is a stand still. No stars, no light, nothing. And not even a contraction to reset it.

    I don't know the physics behind it to actually prove it, but it's what I've read in Articles and some books. So contraction is possible, but given enough time, so it standstill.

    Now if we have infinite time it doesn't matter if you have infinite time or infinite universes in multiverses. Just as there is the very low chance you get the designed universe we have, there is more chances you get a standstill universe. I don't know the science to prove this, but it's what I read in Articles and some books.

    Now even if there is any minute chance 1 in a billion, of a stand still universe, if you give infinite time, it will happen. Contraction stops.

    So this would mean it's impossible to get here no matter how many infinite universes or infinite time because eventually with enough time (and what infinite regress) there is a stand still universe.

    My first question is does any know what I should do to confirm these facts? What books should I read and study?
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  2. Brickjectivity

    Brickjectivity Veteran Member
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2012
    Messages:
    27,638
    Ratings:
    +9,309
    Religion:
    Liberal Christian
    Thermodynamics

    'Entropy' was at first discovered by engineers who were studying engines, but its also evident in other science disciplines. It refers to the number of energy states that some matter can be in. If matter is cold and frozen, then there are fewer energy states possible. If it is hot then there are more. Any sealed up system tends to become uniform in temperature, so its entropy rises. Within that sealed system energy flows away from hot spots to colder ones until everything is one temperature. Therefore unless new heat is produced, everything becomes one temperature. Also if the container has unlimited space (such as our universe has) then the temperature will eventually go to zero -- theoretically.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. Link

    Link Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2019
    Messages:
    1,541
    Ratings:
    +466
    Religion:
    Twelver seeker
    Books, gonna needs lots and lots of books haha.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  4. rational experiences

    rational experiences Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2020
    Messages:
    2,495
    Ratings:
    +96
    Religion:
    spiritualist
    The Holy Grail theory and also teaching realization said that there was no container to ever hold.

    God O mass in its natural history, what science uses, minerals to own the forming of machine metal was once hot itself in natural history...and the mineral was not even present then...it was formed in cooling zero conditions, spatial/pressure.

    The science self takes the mineral, melts it...yet does not even equal God natural history, hot God..for the mineral never existed.

    The hot history of the machine therefore never owned any physical property of being a container for universal spatial cold...what science already knew.

    Yet science today says and claims that it will invent new laws adverse to laws previously agreed upon that already own unnaturally applied orders of natural history, fusion and water in an applied forced condition.....so in Nature we still get unnaturally mass irradiated, for the fission reaction is owned by God the Earth first and not the machine.

    Those 2 incidences, natural ground fission/water cooled phi fall out change plus machine equates overheated machine if you did not apply natural cooling by forced applied theories that do not own the history of NATURAL ORDERS or natural LAWS in their natural order...being what law and order means in real science.

    Then there is fake science, I will think upon my owned human nuclear event and falsify natural law and order...because I already am falsifying it.

    2 wrongs do not make a right his notification.

    What Does the Bible Say About Two Wrongs Dont Make A Rght?

    If a male says I gave the naming infinite and finite the status.

    Yet the Holy Word of God, one origin name said space....and the definition description of space said empty.

    If a male tried to claim that they could move the finite and the infinite through the same one condition, it would be a total contradiction...for space is empty, as the holy one term condition of space....in reality.
     
  5. LegionOnomaMoi

    LegionOnomaMoi Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2012
    Messages:
    10,874
    Ratings:
    +2,145
    None of them are facts.
    I've attached perhaps the best "popular" piece I know of on misconceptions about the multiverse. I don't like it, but I like all other popular presentations less. I can recommend far better sources, but they all require some knowledge of at least elementary mathematics (by which I mean e.g., the standard undergraduate calculus sequence together with courses like linear algebra). Apart from that there's The Road to Reality by Penrose and Barrow & Tipler's The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, but both are a bit dense compared to your typical popular science
     

    Attached Files:

  6. icehorse

    icehorse Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2014
    Messages:
    9,518
    Ratings:
    +5,117
    Religion:
    spiritual anti-theist : )
    I would say that the world's leading cosmologists don't really know the answers to your questions, but they're working on it! One of the lovely things about science is that it's more than okay to say: "we don't know".
     
  7. Heyo

    Heyo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2019
    Messages:
    2,297
    Ratings:
    +1,858
    Religion:
    none
    It is not cosmology that helps you here, it's mathematics. You just have to have one infinity. Either time, space or multiverse will do and you'll get all possible universes - infinite times over.
    Infinity is a weird concept and hard to understand as we don't experience it in reality.
     
  8. ManSinha

    ManSinha Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2019
    Messages:
    1,152
    Ratings:
    +944
    @icehorse
    The Vedas said that ~3500 years ago and it is still a fact -

    RigVeda Mandala 10:129 - the hymn of creation (underlined emphasis mine)

    ko addhā veda ka iha pra vocat kuta ājātā kuta iyaṃvisṛṣṭiḥ |
    arvāgh devā asya visarjanenāthā ko veda yataābabhūva ||
    iyaṃ visṛṣṭiryata ābabhūva yadi vā dadhe yadi vā na |
    yo asyādhyakṣaḥ parame vyoman so aṅgha veda yadi vā naveda ||

    6 Who verily knows and who can here declare it, whence it was born and whence comes this creation?

    The Gods are later than this world's production. Who knows then whence it first came into being?
    7 He, the first origin of this creation, whether he formed it all or did not form it,
    Whose eye controls this world in highest heaven, he verily knows it, or perhaps he knows not.
     
  9. ratiocinator

    ratiocinator Lightly Seared on the Reality Grill

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2017
    Messages:
    2,419
    Ratings:
    +1,585
    Religion:
    none
    Most multiverse hypotheses don't have them happening one after the other along one time dimension. One "standstill" universe, as you put it, wouldn't make any difference to the others.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  10. Link

    Link Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2019
    Messages:
    1,541
    Ratings:
    +466
    Religion:
    Twelver seeker
    It would, because given infinite time backwards, we never get here.
     
  11. ratiocinator

    ratiocinator Lightly Seared on the Reality Grill

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2017
    Messages:
    2,419
    Ratings:
    +1,585
    Religion:
    none
    This is a different mistake than a "standstill" universe.

    Not all multiverse conjectures need an infinite past either, but thinking we'd "never get here" is muddling up an infinite past (no start) with a start an infinite amount of time ago and even that is irrelevant because general relativity tells us that time is just an observer-dependent direction through space time. Time doesn't objectively flow and there is no universally agreed upon present (or any moment in time that applies to all observers). Instead we have the idea of a "block universe" - space-time just is and "now" is no more significant than "here".
     
  12. Link

    Link Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2019
    Messages:
    1,541
    Ratings:
    +466
    Religion:
    Twelver seeker
    If not an infinite past, then it doesn't escape need of first cause.
     
  13. ratiocinator

    ratiocinator Lightly Seared on the Reality Grill

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2017
    Messages:
    2,419
    Ratings:
    +1,585
    Religion:
    none
    Causation requires time and time is part of the space-time which is part of the universe.
     
  14. Meerkat

    Meerkat Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2017
    Messages:
    823
    Ratings:
    +353
    Religion:
    Not sure
    The Fabric of the Cosmos - Wikipedia
    For a general introduction to cosmology, books by Brian Greene are worth a look, eg "The elegant universe" and "The fabric of the cosmos".
     
  15. Link

    Link Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2019
    Messages:
    1,541
    Ratings:
    +466
    Religion:
    Twelver seeker
  16. Link

    Link Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2019
    Messages:
    1,541
    Ratings:
    +466
    Religion:
    Twelver seeker
    That's one way to phrase it but what I mean it would prove time is finite. Hence, you have to assess what the first cause is.
     
  17. ratiocinator

    ratiocinator Lightly Seared on the Reality Grill

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2017
    Messages:
    2,419
    Ratings:
    +1,585
    Religion:
    none
    No. You can't have a cause for time itself because causation requires time to exist. In any case, as I said, time (in the general relativity sense) is just an observer-dependent direction through a (four-dimensional) manifold. The manifold itself, as a whole, is timeless. If it's finite in the timelike past direction, that's just an aspect of its size and shape, not an indication as to why it exists. You seem to be stuck in a Newtonian notion of absolute time.
     
  18. rational experiences

    rational experiences Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2020
    Messages:
    2,495
    Ratings:
    +96
    Religion:
    spiritualist
    Science quotes mass is energy, as their formula.

    O God the stone body he says....where science takes the mass from to build a machine. Claims a theory about a formula for energy and strings and the design formula.

    Does the formula own his machine design, manipulated and built by his person?

    No....the formula is the result of the reaction that he says he can manipulate upon what already exists.

    Which is first proof that science is a liar. For not in any real reference is he not already using energy.

    Earth the body and planetary ownership is all of his real science quotations, how to manipulate and force change the natural planet that he is living on, owning human life.

    So science says......mass energy in space, means NO SPACE. First as a conscious precept of correct thinking.

    For mass energy is created in all forms energy hot or cold held in variations to its conversion.

    So each body of mass owns a variation...for if you said space is a huge space body...and each body owns a position in that body, then each body would be a variable to other bodies...yet scattered bodies would be about the same mass.

    Space not existing remember that quote.

    Then science says but I need space to force travel...for I understand that God the O mass can move through space.

    Where he gained his false science precepts of a body of mass moving through space affected by OTHER conditions that exist on that journey in space.

    That he idealised changed the body of mass that he was living on O the planet.

    So space says that it allows movement.

    Yet space itself is not the movement....other forced conditions allow movement through space....making space natural for natural movement only.

    Science therefore in cosmological science with his machine brought across space, movement of forces that are not natural to Earth as 12 natural light owned just by burning gases...as the state gas/light/12 night time clear gas time...by a yearly timed travel 12 months...the cycle of ONE as a holy body.

    Which does not include science in any term or reference in the language/of God by Numbered factoring.
     
Loading...