my_serpentin

yup my first post (the start of the thread) was pretty short and clear. My second post tried to better define it. Not to mention the really original thread, as cited in my first post, which basically asked the same question, had some more leeway in discussing related ideas, thus i started this with the hope of having more focus. NAY ye damn-threaders have taken more space to wander and squander.

well i dont think you read most of the thread. I know I write a lot(more than generally considered necessary anyway) but its pretty well organized. I have been quite clear about stating what i wanted, with some elaborations, it was nonetheless clear. I also stated that ye threaders should not get hung up on the word eternity, it is just an attention catching title. My question is, Is it logical for a universe (defining universe as the only and entire unit of existence) which has existed in a form forever, is it possible for that universe to end/ become COMPLETELY static? basically its a question of logic, maybe math.

not to insult you, but that doesn't really help. Thinking a thing is or isn't a certain way doesn't make it true. Obviously the state of things must change dramatically of time, which i think is what you mean. But do you think matter itself in all concievable incarnations will ever completely conclude? i'm not sure which is why i asked the question. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT TO ALL DOUCHE BAGS ENGAGING IN 2x INFINITY DEBATE AND RELATED IDIOCIES Dear Douches, I am a bit of an objectivist, and you are obstructing my objective. I want to travel closer to the answers i want, or at least discover some interesting/amusing speculations concerning it. I dont give a shit about these sideshows. If you want to waste your time talking about double infinity and related silliness you are inclined to, start your own goddamn thread for it. Dont pollute mine. p.s. douches--- no personal offense was intended. i didnt even pay attention to who made the stupid comments. As soon as you cease your sin, you are forgiven by my book.

sounds like a useful pondering, but i'm not entirely sure what you mean

i dont think its in the wrong forum. The universe is realm of PHYSICS, and since we cant experiment all we have to work with are speculations and THEORIES. We are also doing these things in modern time :: walaa <<Modern/Theoretical Physics>> I suppose becoming non/never-been-existent would effectively be such an end we inquire of, however it seems achieving such a fate would require external intervention, unless you have theories about the method of such an operation could occur

i think some of you are getting a little hung up on the title, which was mainly an attention grabber. Its not a philosophical question, i'm just asking if it is logically possible for something which had no beginning to ever ABSOLUTELY end. i know you said there is no reason to assume that the universe has existed forever, but for the context of this question we are assuming so, place comments about the beginning in thread as linked in my first post. Keep in mind i am meaning total absolute end, not relative end. It also might make things clearer to redifine the question as to can EXISTENCE itself end. Our universe is not necisarily the only universe, obviously not really a way to test that, but if so, our universe could have a relative beginning when it was created, but there was existence before this point so it is not a true beginning. The same rationale would apply to the end. If our universe does itself somehow have an ABSOLUTE end, but there are other things in existence, this is not a true end. ************ SO: assuming our universe is the only unit of existence, it is the most logical conclusion that it had no beginning. Being the only unit of existence, a beginning equates to ABSOLUTELY something coming out of ABSOLUTELY nothing, which is illogical. (If you dispute this portion of the equation, discuss it in the other thread). THEN if the universe (defined as the only and complete unit of existence) has always existed, is it logically possible for this cycle to come to a ABSOLUTE stop and end. ps conner, thanks for the avatar comps, i've become quite the manson junkie as of late

this thread is essentially a simpler version of the issue of my first thread: http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?p=240022#post240022 This is not a duplicate. It vastly simpler for the purpose of obtaining satisfaction of the primary question i want to understand better. If you have spinoff type info/ideas about other components of the question, please put those in the first thread. This thread has one question only. Can eternity end? Can something which has always been, suddenly degenerate into non-existence? If the universe has in some form always existed, is it logical that it would ever arrive at absolute death? Infinite regression, moving TOWARDS a static state, does sound reasonable. However would it ever arrive at such a state? Please provide evidence for your view.

well there wouldnt have been any 'before' to speak of if it has always been. Yes it is boggling to attemp to comprehend why there is something instead of nothing. I tend to think it makes somewhat more sense then there being a definate beginning. Maybe the you are correct, the answer is outside our capabilities of reasoning. I guess i simply mean, if there is an answer to be found, logic is our only tool for producing it, since there is no way for us to perform any sort of experiment or the likes.

Matt--- basically yes. Which part of it do you think doesnt make sense and why? No i didn't say the thing existed forever. I said existence existed forever. Something created the thing which created us. I'm sorry i even called it a thing, which is probably why you misunderstand me. The thing may be nothing more than the force of the universe exploding then imploding again and this ocillation. Although evidence does not support that particular mechanism of oscillation. I think the particular mechanism is irrelevant because theres no way we could proove it anyway. I think all we can do is use logic to determine the likelyhood of SOME mechanism simply existing. Again by mechanism i certainly dont mean a machine or anything. That is as silly as the idea of God. I simply mean some force, pattern, set of inevitable reactions. As i see it logic is the only way we can determine the answer to questions such as this which are outside our ability to apply the scientific method to. Much as the theory of natural selection. It is completely untestable, it is nothing more than common sense, which evidence seems to suppport. the only thing i assume is that there is no beginning, thus no end. I only assume this because it is what makes most sense to me. Feel free to tell me why i'm wrong. Thats why i started the thread, because I dont trust my logic unchecked, and i want your help. BASCULE-- so are you saying that intelligence makes some alteration or causes some event which spawns the next cycle. Thats a very cool idea, i dont know if it would work like that. Intelligence unlike other life does not always seek to preserve itself. Infact often people possessing high intelligence question the purpose of their existence to the point on determining to terminate it. These may be examples of lower manifestation of high intelligence. Perhaps the most highly intelligent do indefinately seek to secure their future in their own favor. However i cannot say that the arrisal of such intelligence would be inevitable within a universe, so i think there ought to be another way of the contiuation of cycles. Something simple and unintelligent, incapable of making the decision whether or not to continue. Continuation being the only option.

i guess it may be necisary to define why the universe must be cyclic (actually i already did) before addressing my true concern. If it is not cyclic that means at some point there was a result, without a cause. Something coming from nothing. Zero becoming one. SOMETHING caused the big bang. Something created the thing (i'm not saying god, god is illogical. i just mean we dont know precisely what it is) which created the universe, and something created the thing which created the thing which began our universe. Is there any other logical perspective? Honestly i'm not closed minded, but as it is I cant see how it is possible for the universe to not be cyclic. I dont think a living organism is a good comparison. Life is a subjective phenomen of the universe. The universe itself is a different issue. I did make it clear i was talking about ABSOLUTE death. Death of an organism is subjective. The matter of that organism is absorbed by other creatures. Even if life goes extinct, its matter and energy is transported somewhere, form changes, it is not an absolute death

subtracting elaborations of my opening post, i would like to simplify and clarify my intentions, in hopes that my objective is more quickly satisfied: Evidence and logic shows that the universe is moving toward disorder and staticity i.e. death. I reason that the universe must be cyclic. This seems to lead to that ultimate death/ end of the cycle is impossible. However i do not know how to solidly defend that final claim. I wish not to habor blind faith, thus i seek your aid and intuition absolve my absense of understanding. Please note, i realize there are theories stating that perhaps the conception of the universe requires no cause, therefore cycling is not inevitable. These theories make no sense to me. Please provide all answers in the context of the assumption of the cycle. My question is about the termination, not the inception of the cycle. assuming the cycle IS in place, can it logically arrive at an absolute end?

Is the occurance of termination, evidence of a certain conception? The purpose of my pondering is to arrive at a conclusion about the history of the universe(s). Galaxies are not only fleeing the big bang, but doing so with acceleration. I suppose this is means it is all destined to end in some sense. Entropy increase until all imbalances are leveled to a static state. In my reasoning this end would mean a certain beginning, which doesn't make any sense. Something must have caused the beginning. Something must have begun that which began the beginning. There must be a continuum. An eternal history of that which spurred the next. If the universe is at all (which it evidently is) it MUST be CYCLIC. The infinite potential theories for what the Cycle specifically is, is irrelevant for this purpose. Can we establish in least that a cycle of some sort exists? I cannot see it otherwise. My confusion is here---- i believe that being cyclic must mean there is no end ever. I'm not trying to be optimistic, I simply cant see it any other logical way. The cycle must continue IN SOME SENSE. The particular way the continuum is facilitated, is irrelevant. In naked essence can we concede there IS a way for it to continue? How could a cycle of eternal heritage come to any ultimate death? How could it simply fall into an unreedemable conclusion? Finally my concern is, i cannot entirely grasp WHY there cant be an end. Not for absolute certain. It just feels completely wrong. Having no justification nearly equates to blind belief, which i am uncomfortable to harbor. Can you provide input to resolve what i am at loss of?