fudgetusk

Is the past infinite?

Recommended Posts

32 minutes ago, fudgetusk said:

And if you can explain how the universe has always existed then I AM waiting to hear that and have been since this debate began. Still waiting.

 

Time is part of the universe, so there is no before; did you exist before you existed? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Time is part of the universe, so there is no before; did you exist before you existed? 

 

Exactly. time began at a certain point. from nothing. absolute nothing. not the ersatz nothing Krauss is espousing. which contains gravity and dimensions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, fudgetusk said:

which is BS except to those who NEED to believe it.

Just saying it is BS is not a very productive argument. Perhaps you could provide some more (ideally mathematical) detail to support that view?

Quote

Balance between matter and antimatter is not nothing.

As far as I know that has nothing to do with the zero energy universe. Perhaps you explain why you mention it?

53 minutes ago, fudgetusk said:

And if you can explain how the universe has always existed then I AM waiting to hear that and have been since this debate began.

There are all sorts of possibilities. For example:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1404.3093v3

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekpyrotic_universe

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_inflation

 

14 minutes ago, fudgetusk said:

Exactly. time began at a certain point. from nothing. absolute nothing.

I though you said that was impossible?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, fudgetusk said:

Exactly. time began at a certain point. from nothing. absolute nothing. not the ersatz nothing Krauss is espousing. which contains gravity and dimensions.

You're missing the point, there is no begin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/01/2018 at 3:01 PM, fudgetusk said:

And if you can explain how the universe has always existed then I AM waiting to hear that and have been since this debate began. Still waiting. Remember the problem: an infinite amount of time exists before NOW. you cannot cross and infinite amount of time. Explain how you can.

Why would you need to cross an infinite amount of time? (Actually photons can cross infinite time according to very robust theory; are they irrelevant?)

You seem to be saying that because we can't in any way reach the infinite past or future they cannot exist and duration must be finite. This is a philosophical belief; i.e. it's not science.

When matter (or a person) crosses a black hole's event horizon it can never again reach the rest of the universe. Does that mean the rest of the universe no longer exists? Does the rest of the universe still exist for other matter?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/12/2018 at 2:01 AM, fudgetusk said:

Balance between matter and antimatter is not nothing. it is scientific flim flam. Here https://www.npr.org/2012/01/13/145175263/lawrence-krauss-on-a-universe-from-nothing he talks about it. and explains that even when you get rid of everything space still contains gravity. that is bloody obviously because it isn't nothing. get rid of the gravity then we can talk about true nothing. and get rid of space time too. fact:scientists do not understand the word 'nothing'. Krauss is saying something came from something. He also talks about there being virtual particles in this nothing. THAT IS SOMETHING. He is saying the universe always existed...as I said. I bet Hawking is saying something similar.)

And if you can explain how the universe has always existed then I AM waiting to hear that and have been since this debate began. Still waiting. Remember the problem: an infinite amount of time exists before NOW. you cannot cross and infinite amount of time. Explain how you can.

Firstly gravity is spacetime, which evolved from what we know as the BB. Having come in late in this thread, let me say with utmost certainty at this time, cosmologists do not know how or why the universe came to be. But they can reasonably speculate....I like the following reasoning. https://www.astrosociety.org/publication/a-universe-from-nothing/

Let me add that perhaps your definition of nothing should be revised, as hinted at in the extract from the above..."What produced the energy before inflation? This is perhaps the ultimate question. As crazy as it might seem, the energy may have come out of nothing! The meaning of “nothing” is somewhat ambiguous here. It might be the vacuum in some pre-existing space and time, or it could be nothing at all – that is, all concepts of space and time were created with the universe itself"

"Quantum theory, and specifically Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, provide a natural explanation for how that energy may have come out of nothing. Throughout the universe, particles and antiparticles spontaneously form and quickly annihilate each other without violating the law of energy conservation". 

Obviously the universe being the "ultimate free lunch" at least to me, appears to be the only real answer in the absence of as yet, any evidence. Much the same way as Abiogenesis is really the only scientific answer as to how life came to be.

 

On 12/5/2017 at 11:34 PM, fudgetusk said:

. I believe there is no logical explanation of where the universe came from. Scientists seem to have no answer. They are tackling the question with science, which is dependant on logic. They will never find an answer. Which means things like magic may be real too.

Just because at this time we have no empirical evidence of where the universe came from [other then the BB and spacetime as we know it] does not mean that there is no logical explanation. I just gave you a link to one.

Then you are saying the universe came from nothing, which is illogical.

On face value and to a lay person that may seem illogical. But to a professional scientist, there certainly is logical scenarios as to how the universe came to be.

Quote

I bet you will now say "maybe there is no such thing as nothing."

It's your definition of nothing that needs reappraisal.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎11‎/‎01‎/‎2018 at 4:01 PM, Strange said:

Just saying it is BS is not a very productive argument. Perhaps you could provide some more (ideally mathematical) detail to support that view?

As far as I know that has nothing to do with the zero energy universe. Perhaps you explain why you mention it?

There are all sorts of possibilities. For example:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1404.3093v3

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekpyrotic_universe

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_inflation

 

I though you said that was impossible?

Why do I even need to demonstrate why it is BS when it is obvious?  I am asking for a theory that starts with true nothing. You do not seem to understand this English word. Because you are damaged. YOu have been damaged by scientists. They have said "here's nothing" and shown you a picture of something. They've done that so many times you've developed Stockholm syndrome. The theory of zero energy is not nothing(with me so far?) it is a balance of positive and negative that results in a state of nothing. (got that?) true nothing would have no particles. no gravity. You've been had. KRauss is a liar and he's lying to scores of people when he claims he has discovered how the universe came from nothing.

 

Your examples do not explain how the universe could always have existed. They simply show ways in which the universe changed. YOur first example is beyond me. I doubt you can explain it either. Please do.

Let me rephrase the question. Tell me how an infinite amount of time can be crossed.

And yes I am saying it is impossible to make something out of nothing. You cannot go from zero to one without adding a one from somewhere. I'm saying this still happened but it should not be considered a rational act. it is not something that can be explained by science.

On ‎11‎/‎01‎/‎2018 at 4:06 PM, dimreepr said:

You're missing the point, there is no begin.

That's not what you said.

On ‎12‎/‎01‎/‎2018 at 11:48 PM, Carrock said:

Why would you need to cross an infinite amount of time? (Actually photons can cross infinite time according to very robust theory; are they irrelevant?)

You seem to be saying that because we can't in any way reach the infinite past or future they cannot exist and duration must be finite. This is a philosophical belief; i.e. it's not science.

When matter (or a person) crosses a black hole's event horizon it can never again reach the rest of the universe. Does that mean the rest of the universe no longer exists? Does the rest of the universe still exist for other matter?

Why are you people not able to read what I've already explained?

If the universe always existed then that means there is infinite time before this point in time. To get to NOW you will need to cross an infinite amount of time, which is impossible.

Prove photons can cross 'infinite time'. I expect you not to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, fudgetusk said:

And yes I am saying it is impossible to make something out of nothing.

And you're saying it is impossible for the universe to have always existed.

So, from the principium tertii exclusi we can conclude that the universe doesn't exist. Is that correct?

6 minutes ago, fudgetusk said:

Prove photons can cross 'infinite time'.

Why should they need to? In our current cosmological models, they have only existed for about 13 billion years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎13‎/‎01‎/‎2018 at 12:36 AM, beecee said:

Firstly gravity is spacetime, which evolved from what we know as the BB. Having come in late in this thread, let me say with utmost certainty at this time, cosmologists do not know how or why the universe came to be. But they can reasonably speculate....I like the following reasoning. https://www.astrosociety.org/publication/a-universe-from-nothing/

Let me add that perhaps your definition of nothing should be revised, as hinted at in the extract from the above..."What produced the energy before inflation? This is perhaps the ultimate question. As crazy as it might seem, the energy may have come out of nothing! The meaning of “nothing” is somewhat ambiguous here. It might be the vacuum in some pre-existing space and time, or it could be nothing at all – that is, all concepts of space and time were created with the universe itself"

"Quantum theory, and specifically Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, provide a natural explanation for how that energy may have come out of nothing. Throughout the universe, particles and antiparticles spontaneously form and quickly annihilate each other without violating the law of energy conservation". 

Obviously the universe being the "ultimate free lunch" at least to me, appears to be the only real answer in the absence of as yet, any evidence. Much the same way as Abiogenesis is really the only scientific answer as to how life came to be.

 

Just because at this time we have no empirical evidence of where the universe came from [other then the BB and spacetime as we know it] does not mean that there is no logical explanation. I just gave you a link to one.

Then you are saying the universe came from nothing, which is illogical.

On face value and to a lay person that may seem illogical. But to a professional scientist, there certainly is logical scenarios as to how the universe came to be.

It's your definition of nothing that needs reappraisal.

 

 

The same arguments I already answered Pal. Go up and read. And why do they call it nothing if it is not nothing? why are they lying? because they are desperate to prove that something came from nothing. they can't so they lie and you believe it.

I'm saying the world came from nothing but we should not regard this as a logical act. It cannot be explained by science and science should not be allowed to downplay this fact.

If nothing is really something then we have to return to the only other option: that something existed for ever. But then we have to explain how an infinite amount of time could be crossed to get to now(read the thread if this does not make sense)

3 minutes ago, Strange said:

And you're saying it is impossible for the universe to have always existed.

So, from the principium tertii exclusi we can conclude that the universe doesn't exist. Is that correct?

Why should they need to? In our current cosmological models, they have only existed for about 13 billion years.

No. Christ. Am I talking a foreign language? Are you all Polish? I am saying there is no explanation of where the universe came from.

 

I'm not saying photons have crossed infinite time. This other guy is. They haven't. They couldn't. Because infinite time is impossible to cross.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, fudgetusk said:

No. Christ. Am I talking a foreign language? Are you all Polish? I am saying there is no explanation of where the universe came from.

 

Since this is in philosophy, then yes you do seem to be; as has been pointed out by respected members here, there are explanations of where the universe came from. 

18 minutes ago, fudgetusk said:

I'm not saying photons have crossed infinite time. This other guy is. They haven't. They couldn't. Because infinite time is impossible to cross.

Philosophically speaking there are a number of explanations of the infinite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, fudgetusk said:

I am saying there is no explanation of where the universe came from.

And so?

We should stop trying to find one? Or do you mean there can be no explanation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, fudgetusk said:

No. Christ. Am I talking a foreign language? Are you all Polish?

!

Moderator Note

Slurs against any group aren't welcome here. It's in the rules you agreed to when you joined. Do it again and you'll be banned, just to be crystal clear.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, fudgetusk said:

No. Christ. Am I talking a foreign language? Are you all Polish? I am saying there is no explanation of where the universe came from.

No shit Sherlock. Next you will be telling me we have no evidence for life after death. What is it really that you are contributing here, except for your abrasive  attitude towards those more knowledgeable than yourself?

Edited by Lord Antares

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, fudgetusk said:

Why are you people not able to read what I've already explained?

If the universe always existed then that means there is infinite time before this point in time. To get to NOW you will need to cross an infinite amount of time, which is impossible.

Prove photons can cross 'infinite time'. I expect you not to.

You still haven't explained why you have to start in the infinite past. It's similar to my saying you don't exist because you couldn't get here from a billion years ago or from Andromeda.

I never claimed that photons can cross 'infinite time'.

If you want to demonstrate they can't, just show that they have finite range i.e, they somehow cease to exist within finite time (assuming no interaction with another particle).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now