Eternal polyverse?

For discussing anything related to physics, biology, chemistry, mathematics, and their practical applications.

Moderator: Flannel Jesus

Eternal polyverse?

Postby skeptic griggsy » Thu Sep 28, 2006 7:27 pm

How solid are the bounce and bud theories about the polyverse? What are there falults? They imply an eternal universe and therefore, no need for a god. [See the thread on Existence for a philosophical defense of the eternal Existence.] This could be a powerful argument against any god. =D>
Fr. Griggs rests in his Socratic ignorance and humble naturalism.His cortical defects might harm his posting.
"Logic is the bane of theists. Reason saves!" Fr. Griggs
"Religion is mythinformation.'" An Englishman
' God is in w worse position than the Scarecrow who had a body to which a mind could enter whilst He has neither.
As that married bachelor He cannot exist. No wonder He is ineffable!" Ignostic Morgan
" Life is its own validation and reward and ultimate meaning." Inquiring Lynn
Blogs:
carneades.aimoo.com
strato of ga.wordpress.com
ignosticmorgan.wordpress.com
democritus.posterous.com
[/b]
User avatar
skeptic griggsy
 
Posts: 233
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 6:32 pm
Location: Augusta,Ga.

Postby YadaYada » Thu Sep 28, 2006 10:12 pm

I would call them speculations rather than theories. And there a many others, about as well founded. No theory is capable of seeing prior to inflation which by now is agreed. The universe could be infinite, popped out of nothing (Hawking), or budded from a previous universe (Linde).

The existence or nonexistence of God cannot be shown by science any more than by philosophy, for similar reasons. Both are bounded. The key to scientific logic is whether you choose to believe in creation, intelligent design, the anthropic principle, or sheer chance with evolution.
If you don't believe in telekinesis then raise your right hand.
YadaYada
 
Posts: 172
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 3:54 pm

Postby skeptic griggsy » Thu Sep 28, 2006 10:26 pm

Natural selection is the anti-chance agency of evoltiion. I disagree . I think that philosophy can well dispose of a god. See Graham Oppy's magesterial " Arguing about Gods' and Michael Martin's works. Also Talk Reason has philosophical essays on why atheism. See Quentin Smith's essays there. Of course, one can rebut those arguments ,but they do tell against a god.I find it is psychological and not logical, that people find them wrong. And see my signature statement about my frame of mind. :lol: :oops:
Fr. Griggs rests in his Socratic ignorance and humble naturalism.His cortical defects might harm his posting.
"Logic is the bane of theists. Reason saves!" Fr. Griggs
"Religion is mythinformation.'" An Englishman
' God is in w worse position than the Scarecrow who had a body to which a mind could enter whilst He has neither.
As that married bachelor He cannot exist. No wonder He is ineffable!" Ignostic Morgan
" Life is its own validation and reward and ultimate meaning." Inquiring Lynn
Blogs:
carneades.aimoo.com
strato of ga.wordpress.com
ignosticmorgan.wordpress.com
democritus.posterous.com
[/b]
User avatar
skeptic griggsy
 
Posts: 233
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 6:32 pm
Location: Augusta,Ga.

Postby Random » Sat Sep 30, 2006 10:54 am

I think it was Leibniz (could be wrong) that once stated that religion and science are just two different ways to reach the same goal, being the truth.

I disagree with the statement that Philosophy can prove the non-existence of a God, nor can it prove the existence. I'm not sure, but I don't think I would ever accept any kind of evidence that 'proves' the absence of something in an unlimited area of space and time, because any sort of evidence presented in that case would assume that the conditions everywhere and everywhen would be or were the same as they are here and now. And assumptions are dangerous.

Moreso, any kind of discussion about a God is not significant until you define that God, even if it's just in a hypothetical way. Is it all-powerful, all-knowing, etc.

On the other hand, commenting on the other post, I think the existence of God or non-existence can be shown by science, or atleast, it will be possible. Religion and science will be the same thing in the end, in my opinion. Religion does not have to be vague and uncertain, that's just a safety net for the believers at the moment. As soon as we figure out the truth about all those 'religious events' of the past, religion as we know it will die, OR it will blend over in science.
Random
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 4:05 pm

Postby skeptic griggsy » Sat Sep 30, 2006 12:03 pm

One has to look at the arguments against any god to see if they hold,not declare that philosophy cannot show the non-existence of a god. What points does one find the arguments fail? Show that natural selection does not suffice and one must augment it with telology. :roll:
Fr. Griggs rests in his Socratic ignorance and humble naturalism.His cortical defects might harm his posting.
"Logic is the bane of theists. Reason saves!" Fr. Griggs
"Religion is mythinformation.'" An Englishman
' God is in w worse position than the Scarecrow who had a body to which a mind could enter whilst He has neither.
As that married bachelor He cannot exist. No wonder He is ineffable!" Ignostic Morgan
" Life is its own validation and reward and ultimate meaning." Inquiring Lynn
Blogs:
carneades.aimoo.com
strato of ga.wordpress.com
ignosticmorgan.wordpress.com
democritus.posterous.com
[/b]
User avatar
skeptic griggsy
 
Posts: 233
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 6:32 pm
Location: Augusta,Ga.

Postby Impenitent » Sat Sep 30, 2006 12:44 pm

"Ode to a cracker" is the ultimate polyverse

-Imp
cogito ergo cogito
sum ergo sum...

Λογοκρισία και σιωπή

What's the difference between a liberal and Al Qaeda?
Oh, you don't know either?

"False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes....Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." (Thomas Jefferson)

"Stat rosa pristina nomine, nomina nuda tenemus" -Eco
Impenitent
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12706
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 3:16 pm

Postby skeptic griggsy » Sat Sep 30, 2006 1:27 pm

Just how strong are the theories? It would be nice to get a scientific response. Forget about using them against the god notion.They are intruiguing in themselves .For a philosophical response see the thread Existence. See Quentin Smith's and other essays @ Talk Reason where one can get plenty of ammo against theism. I objurugate theism. I have just come across that word in a column. [-X
Fr. Griggs rests in his Socratic ignorance and humble naturalism.His cortical defects might harm his posting.
"Logic is the bane of theists. Reason saves!" Fr. Griggs
"Religion is mythinformation.'" An Englishman
' God is in w worse position than the Scarecrow who had a body to which a mind could enter whilst He has neither.
As that married bachelor He cannot exist. No wonder He is ineffable!" Ignostic Morgan
" Life is its own validation and reward and ultimate meaning." Inquiring Lynn
Blogs:
carneades.aimoo.com
strato of ga.wordpress.com
ignosticmorgan.wordpress.com
democritus.posterous.com
[/b]
User avatar
skeptic griggsy
 
Posts: 233
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 6:32 pm
Location: Augusta,Ga.

Re: Eternal polyverse?

Postby skeptic griggsy » Mon Aug 02, 2010 11:31 pm

[i]We know that the law of conservation of matter-energy means that they are eternal in the form of the quantum fluctuations , whether by quantum tunnelling or as previously discussed here. David Mills in 'Atheist Universe " discusses the quantum fields as they pertain to eternal Existence.
I hope that after two years waiting ](*,) for Rudiger Vaas's book on the matter, it'll be here in three weeks. :banana-dance:
. The pre-Socratics were ahead of their times1]
Fr. Griggs rests in his Socratic ignorance and humble naturalism.His cortical defects might harm his posting.
"Logic is the bane of theists. Reason saves!" Fr. Griggs
"Religion is mythinformation.'" An Englishman
' God is in w worse position than the Scarecrow who had a body to which a mind could enter whilst He has neither.
As that married bachelor He cannot exist. No wonder He is ineffable!" Ignostic Morgan
" Life is its own validation and reward and ultimate meaning." Inquiring Lynn
Blogs:
carneades.aimoo.com
strato of ga.wordpress.com
ignosticmorgan.wordpress.com
democritus.posterous.com
[/b]
User avatar
skeptic griggsy
 
Posts: 233
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 6:32 pm
Location: Augusta,Ga.

Re: Eternal polyverse?

Postby James S Saint » Tue Aug 03, 2010 1:15 am

Eternal universe doesn't equate to Godless universe. Such a thought merely points out the complete ignorance of what the word "God" means. The universe is certainly an eternal entity, always has been, always will be.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Eternal polyverse?

Postby nameta9 » Tue Aug 03, 2010 12:58 pm

The universe is infinite in time and space. The number of planets, galaxies and any other structures is infinite. It has lasted forever, forever changing, will last forever. The big bang is either:

1) True. Which means we happen to be in a bubble of maybe 10^1000 light years in space and 10^20 years from origin, which means it appears to be a big bang since this is how far we can ever possibly see both in time and space ("observable universe" and note that all of the official science has never denied that we are limited in our observation of the universe, has never denied that we can see only a small slice no matter what). If 10^1000 is too small, well just add a few trillion zeros to the exponent aka 10^1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000.....

2) False. Which means that the microwave radiation has another, different origin, which may very well be possible.

Since the universe is infinite in space and time, all possible combinations of Mass - Energy will have the time to come into existence, and in fact will cycle through an infinite number of times, "the eternal return". This also fits in nicely with my theory of the universe as a combination, as a big number:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=157516&start=25


Since any possible combination will occur, this explains the occurrence of life on earth, since that one time quirk sequence of chemical reactions that brought life and man had to occur at least once (but infinite number of times, since the universe is infinite in time and space). So the origin of life is explained.

Also the universe is probably just a small dot in a universe containing an infinite number of other universes with different laws of physics.

All of our science, religion and philosophy is just desperately trying to size this universe to our limited brain, language and thought processes: we cannot accept infinity as an answer while in fact infinity is the only answer. That is why scientists cling on so strongly to the big bang theory.
Last edited by nameta9 on Wed Aug 04, 2010 6:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
nameta9
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1888
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 10:42 am

Re: Eternal polyverse?

Postby felix dakat » Wed Aug 04, 2010 1:18 am

According to a 7/29/10 article by Lisa Zyga a new theory describes a "universe with no big bang, no beginning, and no end."
"By suggesting that mass, time, and length can be converted into one another as the universe evolves, Wun-Yi Shu has proposed a new class of cosmological models that may fit observations of the universe better than the current big bang model. What this means specifically is that the new models might explain the increasing acceleration of the universe without relying on a cosmological constant such as dark energy, as well as solve or eliminate other cosmological dilemmas such as the flatness problem and the horizon problem."

Read more at: http://www.physorg.com/news199591806.html

User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 8191
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: Eternal polyverse?

Postby nameta9 » Wed Aug 04, 2010 6:58 am

A very important property of the infinite universe is that it is large enough to contain logical contradictions: since it is unbounded in time, space, combinations and laws of physics, it no longer has to obey to any principle of non contradiction. Thus the last boundary or models, languages and thought processes of our mind imposed upon reality also disappear.

Any logical contradiction, any linguistic or mathematical contradiction can be contained inside the infinite universe, our thought processes simply break down and cannot contain or model such a world, but nonetheless it is true.

For example, you can rebut that the universe is infinite in time and space but contains just one bit of information that is always set to one and never changed or can change. This is true. You can say, AT THE SAME TIME, the the universe is made up of matter, Mass - Energy as we know it in all directions for infinity and all time from the past to the future, from minus infinite time to plus infinite time. This is true. But since the universe is infinite, it is large enough to contain both universes, they exists, AT THE SAME TIME, mutually exist, are both true even though they appear to contradict each other because infinity is large enough to contain both of them no matter how contradictory they are. Hence even logical contradiction is too small to be contained within an infinite universe.
nameta9
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1888
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 10:42 am

Re: Eternal polyverse?

Postby old6598 » Sat Aug 07, 2010 10:52 am

The origin of Space - Time comes from the existence of monolithic slabs of pure logical - mathematical contradictions: an elementary particle (or item) composed of an invariant monolithic slab of pure logical contradiction. This is because the existence of the contradiction creates:

1) Time as the stage that allows a sequence where the item is assigned or declared or perceived as first "A" and then successively "not A" by a single observer;

2) Space as the stage that allows the item to be assigned or declared or perceived by two distinct observers who are simultaneously assigning the same item as "A" and "not A" from two different points in space hence creating space.

The existence of the "Contradicton" elementary particle constantly creates Space and Time by the continuous creation of elementary virtual particles having the property of being "Virtual Observers": a particle named "Observerton".

Contradictons live in a cloud of virtual Observertons.

In a sense, contradictions do not exist at all, there are only observers that either declare an item true and false in sequence or two observers declaring the item true and false in opposition. The declaring of the item as different by two observers is due to the nature of conflicting will powers, the "Free Willonium", but it may hide a power struggle, or a delusion by assinging something in a certain way as opposed to another: but all assignments are delusions, are only made according to what the intentionalities of the observers are, whether some kind of a gain or just the desire to create an attractive picture of reality according to how the observer would like it to be.

Maybe the Pain/Pleasure circuits natural evolution created constrain the choice of acceptable contradictions, but only because of an arbitrary quirk choice that nature assigned for no necessity or reason at all: the illusion of non-contradiction as the nature of reality by hiding it behind forced Pain/Pleasure circuits...

Nature, Reality and the Physical Universe is ultimately only contradiction.


Of course all of the above is wrong or it would contradict itself (?!?!) .....
old6598
Thinker
 
Posts: 552
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 12:15 pm

Re: Eternal polyverse?

Postby nameta9 » Sat Aug 07, 2010 12:16 pm

Free Willonium is a liquid or material or a phase of matter made up of particles that are independent of each, act and react when encountered in many unknown ways, is based on the free will of these particles acting in any possible way, completely undeterminate.

This is matter's way of escapng the laws of physics, or the laws of physics escaping themselves. This phase of matter or material is outside of the laws of physics. On earth these particles are humans with their quirky mind, always fighting, confronting, challenging each other, always trying to dominate others through their lifestyles, choices, etc.
nameta9
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1888
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 10:42 am

Re: Eternal polyverse?

Postby felix dakat » Tue Aug 17, 2010 4:47 pm

nameta9 wrote:A very important property of the infinite universe is that it is large enough to contain logical contradictions: since it is unbounded in time, space, combinations and laws of physics, it no longer has to obey to any principle of non contradiction. Thus the last boundary or models, languages and thought processes of our mind imposed upon reality also disappear.

Any logical contradiction, any linguistic or mathematical contradiction can be contained inside the infinite universe, our thought processes simply break down and cannot contain or model such a world, but nonetheless it is true.

For example, you can rebut that the universe is infinite in time and space but contains just one bit of information that is always set to one and never changed or can change. This is true. You can say, AT THE SAME TIME, the the universe is made up of matter, Mass - Energy as we know it in all directions for infinity and all time from the past to the future, from minus infinite time to plus infinite time. This is true. But since the universe is infinite, it is large enough to contain both universes, they exists, AT THE SAME TIME, mutually exist, are both true even though they appear to contradict each other because infinity is large enough to contain both of them no matter how contradictory they are. Hence even logical contradiction is too small to be contained within an infinite universe.


Your thought has fallen into a vortex of irrationality. Since the universe you propose doesn't have to obey the law of non-contradiction, it can both contradict and not contradict itself, and still be perfectly logical. In any case, your attempt to reason about an irrational universe is futile.

User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 8191
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: Eternal polyverse?

Postby Farsight » Wed Aug 18, 2010 3:49 pm

skeptic griggsy wrote:How solid are the bounce and bud theories about the polyverse? What are there faults? They imply an eternal universe and therefore, no need for a god....

Just how strong are the theories? It would be nice to get a scientific response. Forget about using them against the god notion.They are intruiguing in themselves...
The "bouncing universe" is totally wrong I'm afraid. Gravity doesn't pull the space of the universe back in on itself. It only makes the matter clump together. Meanwhile the universe as we know it just carries on expanding, like it's been doing for the last 13.7 billion years. We've got pretty good evidence for this along with the big bang, though I suppose some will dispute that. What I don't think they'll dispute, is that we have absolutely no evidence for the big crunch. That isn't necessarily a showstopper. What is, is that gravity just doesn't work like that.

The bud theory isn't quite in the same camp. We can't actually prove that the big bang is unique, and there's no satisfactory explanation for why the universe emerged from "nothing" 13.7 billion years ago. Some talk about the universe being just an overblown quantum fluctuation, but to be blunt that's not a lot better than "God did it". So if we say the universe was created from something, we then get onto the idea of a universe that spawns other "universes", these actually being just a part of the whole universe. We have no actual evidence to support this, but we can't say it's wrong like we can for the bouncing universe.
Farsight
Thinker
 
Posts: 528
Joined: Sat Jun 20, 2009 6:24 am


Return to Science, Technology, and Math



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot]