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

[YoursTrue]

I think that whenever there was time, there was also space, matter, and energy. ALL of these existed whenever any of these did.

The phrase 'always was' is a bit vague. I prefer to say that something existed through all time. This allows for time to be finite into the past.

ok, I'll have to do some research into 'time.'

 

[Polymath257]

The BGV theorem. Plus, I remember the whole "the universe is 13.7 billion years" before I ever knew about the BGV theorem.

It is kind of difficult to say "there is no time when the universe didn't exist", only to give an actual age of the universe.

Makes no sense.

Actually, it makes perfect sense. But you have to actually understand what the BGV theorem says.

The essence of the BGV theorem is that geodesics cannot be extended infinitely into the past (under the assumptions made).

In other words, *time has a beginning*. That beginning, in the Standard model, was 13.7 billion years ago. There simply was no 'before that'.

So, even according to the BGV, and as part of its basic structure, the universe has existed whenever there was time and time did not exist prior to the beginning of the universe.

I was under the assumption that you understood the basics here. The age of the universe is ALL of time.

This, by the way, is why it isn't appropriate to say that the universe 'began to exist'. It wasn't a process that developed over time. Whenever there was time, the universe existed, even if time is finite into the past (as it is for the BGV theorem).

If the universe is 13.7 billion years old, then there was no 14 billion years ago. To have 14 billion years ag

And when you can find a tenable model which averts the theorem, we would love to see it.

Until then, that is where we stand.

See ya around on that tip.

Well, it seems you need to do some study about precisely what the BGV theorem says.

The argument against infinite regress is certainly independent of QM.

And I have shown how the argument fails because it misundersyands the nature of the infinite.

Please enlighten me on how this is accomplished.

Easy, have a flat space.

ds^2 = a^2 (t) [ dt^2 - dx^2 -dy^2 -dz^2 ]

with a(t) only defined for t>0.

This is standard stuff.

I agree.

First of all, who is talking about time "before" that? Not me. And you cannot have change/motion without time, impossible. So you have to explain why would time begin in the first place, and what could be the initiator of time....and nothing which is the initiator of time can also be a product of time.

That time begins is the *conclusion* of the BGV theorem you have been promoting. It seems that you fail to understand that.

And, you are assuming that time needs a 'cause'. But since all causality requires time, that is clearly wrong.

So again, can you enlighten me on how sometime can be of finite age and infinite at the same time.

Again, by having a flat space in an expanding universe of finite age. I fail to see the issue you are having.

That is the point, it cannot exist WITHOUT time...unless of course you have a static/stationary universe with no change or motion whatsoever...and then for no reason whatsoever, a chance occurred (singularity expansion), and thus, time.

No, you are using temporal language when it is inappropriate. There was no 'static universe' with no change or motion. Instead, time, the universe, space, matter, and energy ALL started concurrently.

There was no time before the universe because time is *part of the universe*.

So then you have to explain why was there a change at that point, if it had "prior" been in a motionless state for eternity.

There was no 'point of change'. There was no 'before' to change from; only after. I am NOT saying it was a motionless state for eternity. That would imply that time existed, but there was simply no motion. That is NOT the claim.

The claim is that the time coordinate simply cannot be extended to before the universe.

Makes no sense whatsoever.

Well, maybe you need to study a bit more. From what you have said, you don't even understand what the BGV is saying about the universe beginning: it literally means that the notion of 'before the universe' is self-contradictory and that time is finite into the past.

At least part of the difficulty is thinking that time requires motion. that is no more true that space requires motion.

 

[Polymath257]

First off, it is a theorem...and theorem are difficult to avert....which is why (as YOUR research has demonstrated), all cosmologists can say is..

"Well...QUANTUM GRAVITY"

That is the cheat code...they have to appeal to stuff (equations) that haven't even been worked out yet in order to avert the theorem.

So, what does that say about the theorem?

That it is limited to semi-classical situations. And we *know* that quantum gravity has to be taken into consideration at some point.

Do you deny that?

Hahaha.

Keep trying though...and let us all know once you've worked out those kinks with quantum gravity.

We don't need to work out all the kinks to realize the basics. And, among those basics is that the singularities of the classical theory tend to be 'smoothed out' in a quantum gravity situation.

Um, no.

It is more like you having 12 dozen or so decks of cards, and taking all of the cards out the deck and putting them in hat...and then tossing the hat in the air so that the cards are sporadically floating in the air, and as the cards begin to descend to the ground, they are configured into an obvious card house upon landing.

OK, fair enough.

The SLOT states that no such thing will happen. You don't get that kind of order from random, chaotic processes. And to test this theory, buy some cards and see if you even come close, because that is not how entropy works.

And once again, the SLOT is not a fundamental result. It is the result of averages and expectations, but statistical variations are *guaranteed* over the long run. And yes, entropy *will* decrease eventually.

This is where you will say "But if you have an infinite amount of time, it will eventually happen".

No, because there was no "infinite amount of time/chances" for it to happen. There was only one shot, one try...and somehow, it was NAILED on the first try...defying the 1/10^10^123 odds that which were calculated by Penrose.

Well, that is where you are assuming it was only one shot. In some versions, that is simply not the case. In an infinite universe, some theories predict ALL possible combinations happen somewhere.

Random processes doesn't defy those odds, but a Cosmic, Intelligent Engineer does.

Nope. An intelligent cosmic designer only adds to the problems since that designer would have to be the result of a decrease of some sort of entropy and some sort of laws of motion.

All you are doing is declaring a special exemption for no good reason.

It is simple. In order for today to arrive, yesterday had to be traversed...and in order for yesterday to arrive, the day before yesterday had to be traversed...and so on and so forth.

OK. So between which days is an infinite number of days traversed?

And why, precisely, is it impossible to traverse an infinite number of days, given an infinite amount of time?

If there were an infinite amount of days which lead to today, then in order for today to arrive, an infinite amount of days had to have been traversed...and this is logically impossible, because you cannot count every single point on an infinite line to arrive at a single point (or any point, for that matter).

Why would counting be needed? There would *always* be a count down and an infinite amount fo time would always have already passed.

And if I recall, I asked you elsewhere to tell me the highest number in the set....and I doubt you can provide an answer and in fact, I am 100% positive you can't.

If the set is all days before day 100, the largest number in that set is 99.

Define precisely which set you want me to work with. I choose the set of integers smaller than 100. That is an infinite set that has a largest element (99).

Um no. The KCA is not dependent upon a singularity...however, there are models like the Standard Model of the big bang which features a singularity, but you can also have a model like the Hartle-Hawking model which doesn't feature singularity, but has a beginning, nevertheless.

But did it 'begin to exist' in such models? In other words, was there a time before the universe existed?

I've addressed everything you've said, sir.

No, you have simply restated the same errors. WHY is it impossible to traverse an infinite number of days? be specific.

We *know* infinite regression is impossible and this is a fact which is independent of quantum physics.

Once again, we know no such thing.

And Jesus is returning, too. You see, I also have hopes.



The laws which govern the universe is fine-tuned with mathematical precision. Mindless and blind processes do not give you such precision, but engineers do.

Prove that 'mindless processes' don't do this. prove that a process directed from a mind is possible outside of the unvierse (good luck!).

If the universe does not exist, then there is no "within" location to be had.

PRECISELY! That is exactly why there *cannot* be any causes!

ALL causes happen inside of the universe and through time.

The origins of space, time, energy, and matter (STEM) cannot itself be a product of STEM.

No, the *causes* of space, time, energy, and matter cannot be outside of STEM. But that is because there cannot be a cause of STEM.

ALL causality occurs through STEM.

This is circular reasoning. Thus, fallacious.

No circles; just a closer look at what it means to be a cause.

Quantum gravity (QG) will not give you infinite regress...just like QG won't give you married bachelors or squared triangles.

There is no *logical* contradiction with an infinite regress. it is not a definitional thing.

And, once again, I can give you examples of geometries in which circles are square.

QM can't save you when it comes to logical impossibilities.

But you have not given a logical contradiction, merely a claim that a traversal of an infinite number of days is impossible. You seem to think we start counting at some day and count upwards, which would not be the case.

So, if it can't help you with infinite regress, then it powerless in light of the KCA.

I am appealing to the best explanation...I have two options..

1. God did it

2. Nature did it

You will need to be a LOT more detailed than that.

In particular, you need to explain why causality applies at all in this circumstance. Why is it impossible that the universe 'just is'?

And, of course, you then fail to apply your own logic to God. Why is God the singular thing that can be uncaused? By what mechanism did God cause the universe? Through which laws?

I have evidence against nature doing it, but I have evidence for God doing it.

You have some vague arguments about nature that may or may not be the case. You misunderstand your primary support for one key aspect of your argument (the BGV theorem). And you assume that an intelligence is required for any improbable event.

Therefore, I conclude God did it.

yes, you leap to that conclusion.

I don't agree with a lot of them, either.

No. I have reasons to believe in intelligent design. It is called, inference.

So, lets test this theory...the Mona Lisa painting...is such intelligent design a requirement for such a painting. Yes or no? No filibustering.

Just answer the question, please.

Since we *know* that nature doesn't produce such things, and since we *know* that humans do, it is easy to conclude that it was made by humans.

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, no it isn't. Again, Guth does NOT believe the universe had a beginning.

Syllogism test.

1. Unless something can be scientifically proven...

2. We should be skeptical of its truth value.

Non sequitur. Test failed.

Yes, we should. Absolutely. It may not even *have* a truth value.

 

[joelr]

Did these 'scholars' (and remember, scholars are human, have biases, dispute with other scholars and want to 'prove' their POV's) EVEN TOUCH UPON THE MESSIANIC VERSES?

No the historicity of Daniel isn't being argued? Maybe by fundamentalists who can't accept historical facts?

Did the author of Daniel just get lucky with his make believe prophecy?

There are at least 3 authors of Daniel from very different times. The first is in Aramaic, later redactions are in Hebrew and then Greek.
The Hebrew additions (167-164 BCE) did some re-calculations for failed predictions. The Hebrew author had the angel Gabrielle give 460 years for the 70 week prophecy.

1:13:25 The Hebrew redactor predicted in 164 BCE Daniel would be resurrected and God's kingdom would be established. Rest of the world ends.
This doesn't happen, instead we get Hanukka.
When th eRomans destroyed the temple in 70 CE Mark updated Daniels predictions


Messianic ideas and apocalypticism come from Persia
34:14

At any rate the NT was written with the OT as a source. There are verbatim narratives from the OT in the NT as well as re-tellings of Kings and others. So it was written to appear to fulfill some prophecies.

The first video covers all of the parts of Daniel and how they know what was written when. The Hebrew redactor writing in 167 gets all the prophecies correct up to that date then every single prediction is wrong after that.

Remember, the Jews did not believe their Messiah king would be harmed, or that God's temple would be destroyed. And remember, the Tanakh was 'sealed' after Babylon - that's why the Maccabees never got a mention.

Uh, then why did I just hear a Hebrew Bible professor explain the OT was canonized, reworked during the 2nd Temple Period but was very fluid and redactions were happening all the time. Daniel had an author at 167 and then a later Greek author. Again, standard historical information.

The Jewish people were thinking of a military messiah initially. But by the time the NT was written that story wasn't possible because a military uprising clearly was never going to happen. The Romulus story is a savior and founder to Rome. Mark did a transfiguration of this and made a peaceful savior story.

The prophecies in Daniel are continually re-written. 7th Day Adventists figured out it was 1722, sold their property and waited to be taken to heaven. Did that stop the movement? Nope. They just re-calculate. If you watch the video the Pastor/scholar explains all apocalyptic literature is taking place in the authors lifetime.

 

[PruePhillip]

. If you watch the video the Pastor/scholar explains all apocalyptic literature is taking place in the authors lifetime.

Works like this. One skeptic said you can 'date' Daniel easily because Daniel mentions Alexander the Great.
Alexander would die and his kingdom broken into four.
But I suggest dating Daniel to the First or Second Century AD as it mentions the destruction of the temple, the invasion of Israel and the 'cutting off' of the Messiah.
In similar vein I would date the latter part of Genesis to the same date as Jacob spoke of the end of the Jewish nation with the coming of the Messiah.
And Isaiah too.
I would date Ezekiel and parts of Isaiah to post 1967 AD as the writers speak of the return of the Jews from exile and their rebuilding their ancient nation.
Jesus spoke of the destruction of the Jews, their temple and Jerusalem, but their return in end times to take back Jerusalem. I suggest that text was written after 1967 AD, after all, how could a mere mortal know the future - more problematic, how could a MYTH know the future?

 

[Venni_Vetti_Vecci]

What's funny about that?

Because “Physicists are working on it” sounds like an atheistic/naturalistic version of “Jesus will return soon”.

Not much of a difference when it comes to the utilization of faith.

So yeah, it is funny…the fact that believers get creamed for using faith as it pertains to religion, when atheists exercise faith in their religions…yeah, abiogenesis/evolution…those are religions.

You completely miss the point.

Your bare assertion of "everything that begins to exist...." isn't talking about just the origins of the universe.

It's talking about the origins of EVERYTHING - including all the stuff in the universe.


So that's what I replied to. You're handwaving it away by moving the goalpost of your very own assertion.

Um, no, I did not miss the point.

You are the one who brought up the good ole “energy cannot be created nor destroyed” garbo…and I simply responded by saying that natural law only comes in to play AFTER the universe began to exist.

You cannot use the FLOT on what is now known to be a finite universe. It is circular reasoning, thus, fallacious.

I told you, is a fact of quantum physics.

Your willful ignorance on the matter, is irrelevant.


Quantum Mischief Rewrites the Laws of Cause and Effect | Quanta Magazine

Quantum causality | Nature Physics

Quantum mechanics defies causal order, experiment confirms – Physics World

Causality in a quantum world (scitation.org)

You say agree, yet you insist on invoking causality in an environment where no universe (and thus no causality) exists.

And what I told you is; the argument against infinite regress is independent of quantum mechanics. The point is, not even a quantum realm can get you an infinite amount of things, whether particles, universes, or WHATEVER.

It cannot happen.

Philosophical arguments for the existence of God has existed long before the “quantic” revolution, and no interpretation of QM is going to undercut the arguments against infinity (a finite past).

So, the bottom line is, there can be no such thing as an infinite/eternal past…not on earth, not in any quantum reality, nor in Heaven.

Unless you can demonstrate how ANYTHING related to QM can get you infinity (which you can’t), then your continual appealing to QM is moot…and I will continue to point this out as long as you keep mentioning it.

No.

I never said that. You should work on your reading comprehension skills.

What I actually said, and always have said, is that time / the universe is (or at least: seems) finite into the past.

It began at T = 0. And that was some 13.7 billion years ago. That's a finite amount of time.

First off, I already pointed out to you on at least three occasions that, if your position is that “the universe is finite into the past”, then we are in AGREEMENT, because that is obviously what I’ve spent the bulk of my time arguing and advocating FOR.

How many times have I said that?

You just agreed with me that the universe is finite…so why are you continuing to attack straw man as if I am saying something contrary to what you are saying (at least, in this sense).

So, it is YOU who should work on YOUR reading comprehension skills, not I.

1. claiming it does not make it so. Try to explain it.

2. I didn't make the statement you are accusing me off here.

Again, if you agree with me that the universe is finite, then I don’t see what the beef is here. Unless you have a different definition of “finite”, then I don’t know what your beef is.

I have already explained this to you. You're being extremely obtuse.

I shall repeat a 4th time.


The universe = space-time.

Time is an inherent part of the universe.

Whenever time was flowing, the universe existed.

Whenever the universe existed, time did also.

Always = for all of time.

If by “always” you mean the universe has existed for all time, then you are scientifically and philosophically wrong.

Here is where you say “But earlier, I said the universe is finite!!”, yeah, but then you turn around and say that time/universe has existed for always (for all time).

To be finite is NOT to have existed for all time.

The universe = space-time…and neither one has existed without the other….however, both began to exist, and that is the point you are missing.

The only disgusting thing here, is your blatant misrepresentation.

No.

I said the universe is finite into the past.

Get it in that weaponized brick head of yours.

It is finite into the past.

If it is finite in the past, that would mean that it HAD A BEGINNING. Finite means to be limited..and if the past is limited, then it had a BEGINNING.

I don't know if it is finite or infinite into the future.

Time cannot be finite into the future…once time began, that is it…it exists forever, no turning back.

See, that goes to show how much you apparently DON’T know.

But, if we assume that the universe had a beginning at T = 0 (and it looks like a safe assumption), THEN the universe is finite into the past.

Yeah, um..get back to me when you understand what it means to be “finite into the past”.

That does not contradict the statement that the universe has always existed, since "always" literally means "for all of time". And as explained over a dozen times now, time is an aspect of the universe.

If the universe exists, time exists.

If time exists, the universe exists.

There was no point in time when the universe did not exist.

Straw man…no one is arguing otherwise. But yeah, get back with me when you understand what it going on here.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because “Physicists are working on it” sounds like an atheistic/naturalistic version of “Jesus will return soon”.

Not much of a difference when it comes to the utilization of faith.

So yeah, it is funny…the fact that believers get creamed for using faith as it pertains to religion, when atheists exercise faith in their religions…yeah, abiogenesis/evolution…those are religions.

Scientists have a far better track record.

 

[Polymath257]

Again, when you see any organism decay, you are observing the SLOT in action. It never fails.

An example of its failure:

Second law broken - Nature

 

[Venni_Vetti_Vecci]

Borde–Guth–Vilenkin theorem - Wikipedia

First line of the article:

The Borde–Guth–Vilenkin theorem, or the BGV theorem, is a theorem in physical cosmology which deduces that any universe that has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannot be infinite in the past but must have a past spacetime boundary.

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.

Nothing in thermodynamics stops the universe from continuing to expand indefinitely

Point?

How many times are you going to come back to this useless point?

I already told you the first time you mentioned it: a universe that is finite into the past does not have an "infinite regress" problem.

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.

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??

None of them stand. The first 2 is just you being wrong about BGV and thermodynamics and the third is a dead horse.

Nonsense. Even in the BGV wiki article, nothing that you’ve posted contradicts anything that I’ve said…so the fact that you even had the nerve to appeal to it goes to show that you clearly do not know what is going on here.

As far as thermodynamics is concerned…I do not recall you refuting anything I’ve said, particularly about the first law of thermodynamics (FLOT)..nor CAN you refute anything I’ve said.

So what you are talking about, I do not know.

Nonsensical. In neither statement is QP used to fill any gap.

They are factual statements.

Are they?

QM factually has all kind of things in it which are very unsettling / counter-intuitive to our human minds. Like entanglement etc.

And that quantum stuff is going to be involved in a "theory of everything", which we would need for cosmological origin explanation, is almost certainly going to involve quantum physics, because the obstacle that currently keeps us from such a theory, is the hard problem of unifying gravity with quantum physics.

Neither of these statements are "gap fillers".

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.

They are hypothesis.

Also, they aren't going to trump the big bang model, because they aren't competing with the big bang model. The big bang model, is not a model that addresses origins.

The big bang is a model that deals with inflation / expansion of the universe.

First of all, none of the models addresses origins.

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.

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.

This is elementary logic.

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

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

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?

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.

Bare claim without evidence.

Your only reason for making this claim, is because that is what you already believe religiously.

If you disagree, I await your testable evidence with anticipation

I do not know what this is referring to.

You mean... like you wish to invoke causality to explain the universe?

Yeah, I use causality to explain the origins of anything.

The problem with that is that causality is dependend on temporal conditions.

No it doesn’t. Again, the ball on the cushion analogy…the ball is STILL the cause of the indentation on the cushion, DESPITE no temporal conditions involved.

You need the universe for temporal conditions to exist. And pretty much the same is true for all of classical physics. It all depends on space and time existing.

Quantum mechanics, does not depend on that.

That is in fact the challenge in physics today: unify quantum physics, with classical physics (relativity).

First off, again, STEM began to exist…and this includes quantum realms, multiverses, and higher dimensions.

None of that stuff can be infinite in its past, and thus it ALL had a beginning.

So I can care less about your attempted red herrings of what scientists are trying to do and their hopes for unifying this and that and the third.

It doesn’t matter, it all began to exist and nothing within any physical realm can be used to explain the origins of the physical realm.

 

[Venni_Vetti_Vecci]

What is your evidence for your designer again?

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.

I also have the the origins of consciousness, which can only come from a super-consciousness…because thoughts/mental states aren’t physical…and I have the existence of objective moral values/duties which can only come from an objective law-giver.

Yeah, that is the highlights.

I don't care one bit if a multi-verse exists or not. I'm not the one who's emotionally invested in any particular outcome here.

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.

I think it's cute that you think you know so much better then actual cosmologists and theoretical physicsts who study this stuff for a living, though.

Nonsense, considering the fact that I am appealing to them to make my case. If I knew more than them, then I wouldn’t need to appeal to them, would I?

And clearly you have no idea what you are talking about.

Well, let me put it to you this way, sir: I know more than you.

Multi-verse models are "eternal".

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?

Quotes because the very notion of "time" in that context is problematic. Next to that, and ignoring the fact that the religious apologetic "fine tuning" argument is a cesspool of logical fallacies

Logical fallacies such as?

, there would be no need for any "tuning" either as it would pop an infinite amount of universe each with its own set of laws and constants (insofar as these are actually variable, because none of that is known)

Hmmm…again, right back to “infinity”, I see. I thought time/the universe was finite? Now here we are, talking about infinite regress.

Tsk tsk.

The data that supports the theory from which the multi-verse is a prediction.

Like inflation theory.

False.

Universe May Exist in a Multiverse, Cosmic Inflation Suggests | Space

"It's hard to build models of inflation that don't lead to a multiverse," Alan Guth, an MIT theoretical physicist unaffiliated with the new study, said during a news conference Monday. "It's not impossible, so I think there's still certainly research that needs to be done. But most models of inflation do lead to a multiverse, and evidence for inflation will be pushing us in the direction of taking [the idea of a] multiverse seriously."

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.

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…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.

Guth is not stating that this hypothetical multiverse is eternal, he is just saying it is possible.

The problem is; possibilities are not evidence.

"In most of the models of inflation, if inflation is there, then the multiverse is there," Stanford University theoretical physicist Andrei Linde, who wasn't involved in the new study, said at the same news conference. "It's possible to invent models of inflation that do not allow [a] multiverse, but it's difficult. Every experiment that brings better credence to inflationary theory brings us much closer to hints that the multiverse is real."

Take a look at this wiki article on the multiverse…

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.

Read the article above.

People try to model the first moments of the big bang (and as you can read, these models are based on evidence and further testing produces more evidence in favor of it).

As it turns out, the math that describes that inflation, also spits out a multi-verse.

The math in some inflationary models, but not all.

Nobody went out of his way to "model a multi-verse" in. What they were modeling was inflation. The model itself then predicts a multi-verse. Much like how Einstein wasn't modeling what a black hole was. He was modeling how gravity / light worked. That was his goal. Then after he was finished, the model spits out descriptions of black holes. Due to this, in fact, Einstein figured he had to be wrong somewhere, because he thought the idea of black holes was absurd.

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)

I was thinking the same thing.

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

 

[Venni_Vetti_Vecci]

How is that not statistical?

Ok, so school me on what you mean by statistical. I know Google is my friend, but I want you to explain it to me and what it means in this context .

 

[ppp]

Ok, so school me on what you mean by statistical. I know Google is my friend, but I want you to explain it to me and what it means in this context .

You wrote the extensive post. You school me on what you mean by statistica in that post, and why the term does not apply.

 

[joelr]

Works like this. One skeptic said you can 'date' Daniel easily because Daniel mentions Alexander the Great.
Alexander would die and his kingdom broken into four.

You are talking past me to someone I don't know. I don't know about a "skeptic"? I'm talking about historical scholars.
There are 2 surviving versions of Daniel. One starts in Hebrew, switches to Aramaic then back to Hebrew.
The Septuagint translates it all into Greek but adds stories.

The original is in Aramaic. Then it is expanded by an author who writes in Hebrew and does not translate the Aramaic into Hebrew.

The Aramaic text was the state language of the Persian empire and written late 3rd or early 2nd century BCE by Jewish exiles. Involved exploits of exiled Judaean nobles in the courts of Babylonian kings.

The original Aramaic text were expanded by a redactor in 167 and before 164 bce. He composed his text in Hebrew but failed to translate the Aramaic text into Hebrew so the seams are more obvious.
The Hebrew additions include things happening at that time including the destruction of the temple in 167 and perfectly predicts the actions of Antiochus IV up to 167 BCE.

Then the additional Greek sections were added and it was all translated into the Septuagint into Greek.

The Aramaic and Hebrew text survived separately so we can tell what was added.


The material that took place in the 6th century is mostly wrong historically.

The Aramaic predictions were all happening within the authors life.
The resurrections and new world was supposed to happen at the rebuilding of the temple. All predictions failed. People have been recalculating them over and over ever since.
When the Romans destroyed the temple in 70 AD Mark updated Daniels predictions.

All this is covered here:

But I suggest dating Daniel to the First or Second Century AD as it mentions the destruction of the temple, the invasion of Israel and the 'cutting off' of the Messiah.
In similar vein I would date the latter part of Genesis to the same date as Jacob spoke of the end of the Jewish nation with the coming of the Messiah.
And Isaiah too.

Because Mark updated it. The temple it was writing about was the temple prior in the 2nd Temple Period.

I would date Ezekiel and parts of Isaiah to post 1967 AD as the writers speak of the return of the Jews from exile and their rebuilding their ancient nation.
Jesus spoke of the destruction of the Jews, their temple and Jerusalem, but their return in end times to take back Jerusalem. I suggest that text was written after 1967 AD, after all, how could a mere mortal know the future - more problematic, how could a MYTH know the future?

It isn't problematic. A myth didn't know the future. The Quran makes claims that their nation will cover the world and this and that. Do you think that is fulfilled prophecy? All religions say they are going to rule the world and their God is going to conquer everybody. A prophecy gives dates times and specifics. Yahweh claimed the Jewish people would rule everything and all the nations would bow down.

But Ezekiel is talking about returning from the exile in Babylon and regaining Israel. They did come back but it was conquered again. Then again. This in no way had anything to do with events 2000 years later.
Also it's full of things that never happened?

"and the land of Egypt shall be desolate and waste; and they shall know that I am the LORD: because he hath said, The river is mine, and I have made it."

There is also a historical lecture on apocalypse in Biblical literature:
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…


43:53 Daniel 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.

 

[PruePhillip]

Because Mark updated it. The temple it was writing about was the temple prior in the 2nd Temple Period..

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?

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.

 

[PruePhillip]

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

.

Ezekiel 38, 39 gave us an amazingly detailed picture of another Israel, called out of the nations in the latter days and returning to a ruined land. The Jews will rebuild this land in difficult times. They will be attacked by various nations which at the time were known as Ethiopia, Libya, Persia and Magog - other than Persia (Iran) these nation's borders have long since shifted. But Israel has an ally on the coastland or islands which the author did not know (people who live carelessly.) This ally saves Israel from a frightening scene of fire. Says Magog (part of Russia I read, the 'uttermost north' of the world) 'send fire' on this ally, and go out and kill many not related to this battle field. This reads like a nuclear war.
Ezekiel wrote to an incedulous people wanting their freedom from Babylon - a 'second return'

Isaiah 11:11 "In that day the Lord will reach out his hand a second time to reclaim the surviving remnant of his people from Assyria, from Lower Egypt, from Upper Egypt, from Cush, from Elam, from Babylonia, from Hamath and from the islands of the Mediterranean."
Was this written ca 600 BC or in the 20th Century AD ???????

 

[Venni_Vetti_Vecci]

The “hocus locus” is those like creating daylight with magic words “Let there be light” (Genesis 1:3-5) or creating fully grown human from dust and bringing it to life just by blowing air into the dust-made nostrils (2:7).

Lets compare...

Christians: God, an omnipotent being, created the universe and life just by uttering the words..and he came on Earth to die for the sins of mankind..and he died, and was resurrected 3 days later by his own power.

I will admit, that is what I believe. You can call it hocus pocus, you can call it magic.

However, here is what atheists/naturalists believe...

Atheists-Naturalists: The universe popped in to being out of nothing (or it has existed from eternity past, which is something not even God can do), and matter/energy was floating around chaotically and randomly...and suddenly (or gradually), this matter...this dead, inanimate matter, came to life. This matter came to life...and it began to talk, think, eat, and seek out mates with other matter which had also independently came to life (how convenient).

So, my faith is based upon a dead man coming back to life...and atheists faith is based upon dead (inanimate matter) coming to life.

So, hocus pocus for both of us.

Those are hocus pocus. You might as well as believe in fairytales, with winged fairies, pixies, ghouls, goblins, etc.

In fact, the Christian teachings do believe in fairies...they are called angels (eg Ezekiel 1:5-14; Revelation 4:8), and demons with many heads (Revelation, eg the Two Beasts, the Dragon, the Whore of Babylon, etc).

Well, here is more hocus pocus. I guess we can see where the concept of Transformers have come from...it probably came from the theory of evolution.

You know, an animal begins as a simple, complex organism...and then it gradually, over hundreds of millions of years, transforms into a completely different kind of animal.

It is like Transformers in super-DUPER slow motion. And these kind of hocus pocus transformations led to the atheistic-evolution article of faith..

"No one living today has ever seen it (macro-evolution) happen. No one living in a million years will ever see it happen. But, it happens".

Hocus pocus.

 

[Polymath257]

Because “Physicists are working on it” sounds like an atheistic/naturalistic version of “Jesus will return soon”.

Not much of a difference when it comes to the utilization of faith.ffer

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.

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.

So yeah, it is funny…the fact that believers get creamed for using faith as it pertains to religion, when atheists exercise faith in their religions…yeah, abiogenesis/evolution…those are religions.

Again, there is a HUGE set of differences between the two.

No, abiogenesis is an active area of scientific research. Evolution is an established scientific explanation.

Um, no, I did not miss the point.

You are the one who brought up the good ole “energy cannot be created nor destroyed” garbo…and I simply responded by saying that natural law only comes in to play AFTER the universe began to exist.

You cannot use the FLOT on what is now known to be a finite universe. It is circular reasoning, thus, fallacious.

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.

And what I told you is; the argument against infinite regress is independent of quantum mechanics. The point is, not even a quantum realm can get you an infinite amount of things, whether particles, universes, or WHATEVER.

It cannot happen.

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

Philosophical arguments for the existence of God has existed long before the “quantic” revolution, and no interpretation of QM is going to undercut the arguments against infinity (a finite past).

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.

So, the bottom line is, there can be no such thing as an infinite/eternal past…not on earth, not in any quantum reality, nor in Heaven.

Unless you can demonstrate how ANYTHING related to QM can get you infinity (which you can’t), then your continual appealing to QM is moot…and I will continue to point this out as long as you keep mentioning it.

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.

Here is where you say “But earlier, I said the universe is finite!!”, yeah, but then you turn around and say that time/universe has existed for always (for all time).

To be finite is NOT to have existed for all time.

It does if time is finite into the past.

So, you are contradicting yourself

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.

The universe = space-time…and neither one has existed without the other….however, both began to exist, and that is the point you are missing.

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.

If it is finite in the past, that would mean that it HAD A BEGINNING. Finite means to be limited..and if the past is limited, then it had a BEGINNING.

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.

Time cannot be finite into the future…once time began, that is it…it exists forever, no turning back.

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.

See, that goes to show how much you apparently DON’T know.

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

Yeah, um..get back to me when you understand what it means to be “finite into the past”.

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

[/QUOTE]
Straw man…no one is arguing otherwise. But yeah, get back with me when you understand what it going on here.[/QUOTE]

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

 

[Polymath257]

I have a universe which began from nothing…so there exists an entity with the power to create from nothing.

There are already three mistakes here.

1. The universe did not 'begin from nothing'. The universe encompassing all of space and time simply exists. it may be finite into the past or future, we don't know.

2. The first part does not imply the existence of an entity capable of creation from nothing.

3. Technically, 'nothing' simply does not exist. there was never a point where there was 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.

Failure of analogy. Complex things can be produced by natural sources when there is sufficient feedback. The fact that we know some complex things are designed does not imply that ALL complex things are designed.

I also have the the origins of consciousness, which can only come from a super-consciousness…because thoughts/mental states aren’t physical…and I have the existence of objective moral values/duties which can only come from an objective law-giver.

That seems like a *very* bold claim, especially given the evidence that consciousness is a product of brain activity.

Yeah, that is the highlights.

A nice list of logical leaps and assumptions that are likely wrong.

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.

Your mythology is irrelevant to this discussion.

Nonsense, considering the fact that I am appealing to them to make my case. If I knew more than them, then I wouldn’t need to appeal to them, would I?

Well, it would help if you really understood what they are saying.

Well, let me put it to you this way, sir: I know more than you.

That is very far from being clear.

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?

Yes, most multiverse theories have time go infinitely into the past. Your 'infinite regression problem' just shows how cheap philosophy can lead to silly errors. Those errors don't need to be considered in serious discussion.

Logical fallacies such as?

Among others:

1. It assumes the constants *can* be different.

2. It assumes there are not other laws that determine the values of those constants.

3. It assumes that the constants were 'chosen'

4. It assumes that life is the goal.

5. it assumes that the values of the constants are uniformly likely.

Etc.

Hmmm…again, right back to “infinity”, I see. I thought time/the universe was finite? Now here we are, talking about infinite regress.

Tsk tsk.

The *universe* may be finite into the pat even if the *mutliverse* is infinite into the past.

Try not to belittle those who seem to know more than you..

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.

Well, 99% lead to a multiverse, but yes.

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…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 would apply at this level only if the multiverse is expanding on average. That need not be the case. It also assumes a classical geometry. That need not be the case.

Guth is not stating that this hypothetical multiverse is eternal, he is just saying it is possible.

The problem is; possibilities are not evidence.

Good. So the *possibility* of an intelligent creator is not evidence for such?

Take a look at this wiki article on the multiverse…

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.

Which is why it isn't established science as yet.

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.

The math in some inflationary models, but not all.

First, be clear that inflationary cosmology is not the same as simply having an expanding universe.

Inflationary scenarios tend to have *exponential* expansion for some period of time. These were proposed to deal with certain observations such as the observed uniformity of the observable universe and the 'fine tuning' problem.

There is some evidence that the Higg's boson could be the spin 0 particle that drives inflation in the very early universe.

The problem is that the inflationary epoch is *very* early in the expansion, well before the time of nucleosynthesis, and that *evidence* from this time period tends to have been destroyed.

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)

I was thinking the same thing.

Good for you. Now, what *evidence* do you have?

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

But they should be considered, especially when they are consistent with the known evidence.

 

[Venni_Vetti_Vecci]

How about Loop Quantum Gravity?

Is that the prevailing model in cosmology? No, it isn't. You guys have to come to grips with the fact that you have to do more than just toss hypothesis around and hope it land.

You have to have evidence....evidence that has been tested and proved to be true.

All you (and they) have are "what if" scenarios...and "what if" scenarios is not evidence....no more than "what if God exists" is evidence that God exists...as a matter of fact..

"What if" God exists?

And, once again, the standard model is a classical theory. It is not based on a description of quantum gravity. But *everyone* knows that some version of quantum gravity will eventually be required. And the BGV result does NOT cover such theories.

The question is whether or not quantum gravity will give you a past-eternal universe...and the answer is no.

You cannot have neither..

1. An infinite amount of time..

2. An infinite amount of discrete events within time..

Neither one are possible.

Because again, philosophical arguments are independent of science and QM are subject to these arguments.

You aren't getting an actual infinity on earth, in the universe, or even in Heaven...and if it can't happen in heaven, it can't happen anywhere.

You are the one in this forum promoting the ideas. If you don't understand them enough to defend them, perhaps you should leave the debate to those who do.

I can successfully engage and defend all subject matters of which I am in discussion.

And once again, *virtually*. Not all. And the BGV result is semi-classical (do you know what that means), so will need to be extended to cover quantum versions of gravity.

Hmm, well...I am sure Vilenkin, Guth, and Borde knows what "semi-classical" means, but that didn't stop them from formulating the theorem, did it?

The theorem did, however, put the cosmological community in a frenzy as they tried time and time again to come up with a model which violates the theorem, and all have failed thus fair.

So if they don't care about it, then neither do I.

And again, speaking of "extended to cover", philosophical arguments for the existence of God (particularly, arguments against infinite regress), are extended to cover over scientific arguments.

They are completely independent of scientific arguments, so even if you appeal to the atheistic typical cheat code of "Aha!!, Quantum Physics!!!", and the BGV theorem is violated (which, I dont for one second believe that it is, but I am speaking for arguments sake), then the philosophical arguments (PA)shall take over, because PA doesn't care about quantum physics or any latest or new scientific discoveries.

PA states that there is no such thing as a two-sided stick or a squared circle, and there is no amount of QM that is going to change those facts.

And if you read the paper, that is clear. I don't need Vilenkin to interpret the paper. Do you?

I did something even better, I watched the 7 minute video of Vilenkin giving a presentation on the theorem and its implications...in front of a bunch of scientists/cosmologists.

You haven't been around many scientists, have you. This type of exchange often goes on for decades.

No, but I learn from them.

Read the paper.

I'd rather watch the video so I can see/hear straight from the horses moutn.

It applies to any semi-classical situation in which geodesics describe the geometry. Yes, that would include *most* multiverse scenarios as well as others, such as infinite inflation or Anti-deSitter spacetimes.

Yeah, there are a lot of speculated "scenarios", aren't there? A lot of speculation, and wishful thinking.

All of these models thrown around, hoping one will stick.

Tell ya what, name me ONE model which has been put forth which has successfully violated the theorem, WITHOUT failing to be viable for other empirical reasons.

Can you do that? No, you can't.

I get it, Quantum Gravity? Ok, I see your quantum gravity, and I raise you the IMPOSSIBILITY OF INFINITE REGRESS.

Game over.

But what is *shows* is that each individual geodesic is limited into the past (assuming the Hubble expansion condition). That is NOT the same as saying the universe/multiverse has a single beginning.

Nonsense. The theorem applies to the multiverse as well.

Again, read the paper closely. This is still a very important constraint on any proposed theory, but it is not as comprehensive as you seem to think.

I saw the video.

From the wikipedia article on the BGV theorem:

"Theoretical cosmologist Sean M. Carroll argues that the theorem only applies to classical spacetime, and may not hold under consideration of a complete theory of quantum gravity."

Well, when you or Carroll provide this "complete theory of quantum gravity", then let us know.

Until then, BGV it is.

The theorem is not violated based on what could be the case...you have to prove that it is the case.

You guys are using mere possibilities as facts, which is a non sequitur and thus fallacious reasoning.

Besides that, Dr. Craig answered a question pertaining to Sean Carroll on this subject..

Dr. Craig summed up his comprehensive answer to the question by basically saying..

"Don't believe the hype".

Hahaha.

More, specifically, from Carroll's article (worth reading for those who don't understand the physics in depth", https://arxiv.org/pdf/1802.02231.pdf

"A theorem by Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin [33] demonstrates that spacetimes with an average expansion
rate greater than zero must be geodesically incomplete in the past. This is sometimes offered as an argument
that the universe had a beginning, but that is incorrect. Trivially, the average expansion rate could be zero,
as it would be in a bouncing cosmology. More importantly, the theorem only applies to classical spacetimes,
so at most it could indicate where the classical approximation breaks down, not where the universe begins."

This was covered in the above link.

Yes, *our* particular geodesic has a singlularity in the past. That is NOT the same as saying that the universe had a beginning.

A singularity implies a beginning, sir.

It does NOT apply to any quantum gravity theory. As Carroll stated, the BGV theorem most likely simply shows where the classical approximation breaks down. And we *know* it will at some point.

Again, provide a tenable quantum gravity theory and we will take it from there.

Until then, speculation and wishful thinking. Evidence is not based on possibilities...evidence is based on facts.

You are bringing speculation to a facts fight.

Only if the expansion rate is more than 0 on an average. That can easily break down if there are both regions of expansion and of contraction. The singularities joining such are not going to be described by the semi-classical theories.

Ok, so name the model which features regions that are expanding and contracting...and what is the science supporting it.

Again, possibilities are not evidence.

And, again, even under the BGV theorem, that is not proved. At most, it shows that no geodesic goes infinitely into the past under a classical theory. After Hawking, that isn't even surprising. But it doesn't prove there is a 'beginning' that is common to the whole universe.

Philosophical problem..and never mind there there is no observational evidence whatsoever that there is another universe out there besides our own..never mind that for now.

Lets focus on the fact that if the conditions which allowed our universe to begin has existed for eternity, then it makes no logical sense as to why our universe would have only began to exist a finite time ago.

Makes no sense.

You see, unfortunately, most cosmologists, while they are geniuses at the sciences..they are absolutely terrible with the logical reasoning.

 

[Polymath257]

Is that the prevailing model in cosmology? No, it isn't. You guys have to come to grips with the fact that you have to do more than just toss hypothesis around and hope it land.

You have to have evidence....evidence that has been tested and proved to be true.

Yes, ALL of this is speculation. You speculate that time cannot be infinite into the past. Cosmologists speculate that it can.

At this point, the *evidence* is that General relativity gives a very good model for the times where we have evidence from.

The evidence *also* shows that quantum mechanics is part of how the universe works. So the *evidence* is that *some* version of quantum gravity will be necessary.

All you (and they) have are "what if" scenarios...and "what if" scenarios is not evidence....no more than "what if God exists" is evidence that God exists...as a matter of fact..

"What if" God exists?

If God exists, NOTHING in science changes at all. Why would it?

If God exists, I would not live my life any differently. Why would I?

The question is whether or not quantum gravity will give you a past-eternal universe...and the answer is no.

Some models have a part-eternal universe and others do not.

So the answer is *possibly*. And that mean the possibility needs to be considered.

You cannot have neither..

1. An infinite amount of time..

2. An infinite amount of discrete events within time..

Neither one are possible.

I disagree. And I find your philosophical argument incredibly weak and lacking of understanding of the issues involved.

Because again, philosophical arguments are independent of science and QM are subject to these arguments.

But philosophical arguments are notorious for being wrong. That is because they mostly play off of intuitive biases as opposed to strong reasoning.

You aren't getting an actual infinity on earth, in the universe, or even in Heaven...and if it can't happen in heaven, it can't happen anywhere.

And I disagree. there is nothing self-contradictory about an infinite space or time. Even you admit that it is possible that time is infinite into the future.

I can successfully engage and defend all subject matters of which I am in discussion.

Well, you can convince yourself of that, at least. Have you actually read and understood the BGV paper? or are you replying on its interpretation by others?

Hmm, well...I am sure Vilenkin, Guth, and Borde knows what "semi-classical" means, but that didn't stop them from formulating the theorem, did it?

No, it didn't. And the semi-classical result is both interesting and important. At the very least, it shows where classical ideas will likely break down.

The theorem did, however, put the cosmological community in a frenzy as they tried time and time again to come up with a model which violates the theorem, and all have failed thus fair.

I think it is more of a tempest in a teapot, frankly. In my discussions with cosmologists, the BGV theorem never comes up. It seems to only come up with theists.

So if they don't care about it, then neither do I.

They do care. But they are much more subtle thinkers than you. One of the issues is the limits of classical reasoning. And, in this case, one of those limits is that it predicts singularities.

And again, speaking of "extended to cover", philosophical arguments for the existence of God (particularly, arguments against infinite regress), are extended to cover over scientific arguments.

They are completely independent of scientific arguments, so even if you appeal to the atheistic typical cheat code of "Aha!!, Quantum Physics!!!", and the BGV theorem is violated (which, I dont for one second believe that it is, but I am speaking for arguments sake), then the philosophical arguments (PA)shall take over, because PA doesn't care about quantum physics or any latest or new scientific discoveries.

Sorry, but the philosophical arguments carry *much* less weight than even theoretical physics arguments like BGV. The reason? Philosophical arguments have been proved to be wrong too many times. They tend to be based on intuitions as opposed to actual logic (intuitions like 'traversing time').

Philosophy did not realize the nature of time revealed by relativity, nor the problems with causality revealed by quantum mechanics. So, for most scientists, mere philosophical arguments carry almost no weight, other than to clarify intuitions that usually need to be modified and/or discarded.

PA states that there is no such thing as a two-sided stick or a squared circle, and there is no amount of QM that is going to change those facts.

I have no idea what you mean by a 'two sided stick'. it seems to me most painting sticks are two-sided.

And circles can be squares in some geometries, as I have pointed out before and that you have ignored.

Logic alone simply does not get you very far. In addition, you need facts upon which that logic can work. But, for facts about the universe, you then need observation and testing and they are *always* tentative.

I did something even better, I watched the 7 minute video of Vilenkin giving a presentation on the theorem and its implications...in front of a bunch of scientists/cosmologists.

LMAO! You think that is *better* than actually reading and understanding the paper itself? Watching a 7 minute video? Really?

maybe, instead, you should take some time to actually learn the basis for that paper and what it says. Maybe you should think critically about that paper and the assumptions it makes (don't just take popular accounts as valid--read the actual work).

No, but I learn from them.

I'd rather watch the video so I can see/hear straight from the horses moutn.

The paper *is* the 'horses mouth'. it is the carefully written down results of thought about the topic, as opposed to off-the-cuff comments that can include misstatements and inaccuracies.

Yeah, there are a lot of speculated "scenarios", aren't there? A lot of speculation, and wishful thinking.

And the BGV theorem is part of those speculations. In particular, it gives the limits of classical ideas and shows what sorts of things might arise when quantum effects are considered.

All of these models thrown around, hoping one will stick.

Well, yes, that is how science works. Models are made that are consistent with the evidence. Then the models are tested by *new* observations to see which ones 'stick' to the facts.

Tell ya what, name me ONE model which has been put forth which has successfully violated the theorem, WITHOUT failing to be viable for other empirical reasons.

Loop quantum gravity.

Can you do that? No, you can't.

I get it, Quantum Gravity? Ok, I see your quantum gravity, and I raise you the IMPOSSIBILITY OF INFINITE REGRESS.

Game over.

Nope. Once again, your philosophical arguments carry very little weight in these matters. Much more important is internal consistency of the theory and agreement wtith observations and the evidence collected so far.

Nonsense. The theorem applies to the multiverse as well.

Assuming an average expansion of the multiverse and that it is explained by classical concepts. Neither is likely.

I saw the video.

But did not read the scholarly paper.

Well, when you or Carroll provide this "complete theory of quantum gravity", then let us know.

Until then, BGV it is.

BGV is one interesting result. But it is not the be-all and end-all of cosmology by a LONG shot.

The theorem is not violated based on what could be the case...you have to prove that it is the case.

Nope. As you have pointed out, a model avoiding its assumptions is all that is required. Such do exist and are being investigated.

You guys are using mere possibilities as facts, which is a non sequitur and thus fallacious reasoning.

And you go way beyond that. At least the scientific speculation is limited to those theories consistent with the *known* facts of quantum mechanics and general relativity.

You, on the other hand, are going *way* beyond the evidence in postulating something non-material that has the capabilities of making universes, etc. There is NO evidence for any of that. Only speculation.

Besides that, Dr. Craig answered a question pertaining to Sean Carroll on this subject..

Dr. Craig summed up his comprehensive answer to the question by basically saying..

"Don't believe the hype".

Hahaha.

WLC is an idiot. he is highly regarded by some theists, but that only shows how low theism must go to look reasonable.

This was covered in the above link.

Where?

A singularity implies a beginning, sir.

Boy, do you have a lot to learn. There are many types of singularity. Not all imply a beginning.

Again, provide a tenable quantum gravity theory and we will take it from there.

Until then, speculation and wishful thinking. Evidence is not based on possibilities...evidence is based on facts.

Loop Quantum Gravity.

You are bringing speculation to a facts fight.

ANYTHING involving anything before the period of nucleosynthesis is speculation. Anything involving the geometry or structure of the universe before that time is speculation.

So ALL of this discussion is speculation on both sides. The difference is that I am trying to sticj to the scientific theories that have been *speculated*, but that agree with the known facts.

Ok, so name the model which features regions that are expanding and contracting...and what is the science supporting it.

Again, possibilities are not evidence.

Goes both ways. Speculation about causality outside of the universe is just that: speculation.

Speculation about something before the universe is exactly that: speculation.

if you want to avoid speculation, don't discuss questions about the origin of the universe.

Philosophical problem..and never mind there there is no observational evidence whatsoever that there is another universe out there besides our own..never mind that for now.

As far as evidence goes, it is just as much as there is that anything was before the universe. The difference is that some speculation comes directly out of trying to solve known physics issues.

Lets focus on the fact that if the conditions which allowed our universe to begin has existed for eternity, then it makes no logical sense as to why our universe would have only began to exist a finite time ago.

First show that the phrase 'allowed our universe to begin' even is meaningful. Then show that such conditions actually existed (evidence, please). Then give more deail about why it makes no 'logical sense' for the universe to have 'begun to exist' a finite time ago.

You are making fundamental assumptions even in your statement of the problem. But those assumptions may not be valid.

Makes no sense.

What doesn't?

You see, unfortunately, most cosmologists, while they are geniuses at the sciences..they are absolutely terrible with the logical reasoning.

They tend to be much better at staying consistent with the facts than philosophers. Philosopher like to tie themselves into knots over non-sense and then claim their biases are logically necessary (even when it can be demonstrated otherwise).