my_serpentin Posted January 17, 2006 Author Share Posted January 17, 2006 I really don't think that every thing can last forever, not even the world will be here till the year 16000. I hope this helps. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gcol Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 serpentin: "I want to travel closer to the answers i want" Just joking, but did you really mean that? If so , just give us a clue as to the answer you want. Someone may oblige. You will be happier, but any the wiser? There is but one strict definition of eternity. Some posters have insisted on talking about the type of eternity they would personally prefer. For logical and semantic reasons, they should coin their own words together with appropriate definitions. Keep eternity pure, that's what I say! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
my_serpentin Posted January 17, 2006 Author Share Posted January 17, 2006 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
my_serpentin Posted January 17, 2006 Author Share Posted January 17, 2006 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aguy2 Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 NAY ye damn-threaders have taken more space to wander and squander. my_serpentin, I think we may have began to go off on a tangent when we started to confuse the issue of eternity with the multiple issues concerning infinities. My dictionary gives two definitions of 'eternity' that are meaningful to our investigation: 1) infinite time; duration without beginning or end. I would contend that it might be possible for us to say that something was or has been eternal, if we can show that it had no beginning, but how could we possibly say that something will be eternal, when we can't even accurately predict who will win next weeks football games? The second definition of 'eternity' may hold more hope for a meaningful investigation: 2) the timeless state into which the soul is believed to pass at death. I think it is interesting to note that we all but universally agree to the unvoiced assumption (a meme?) that a possible 'timeless' state is somehow of a higher order than the 'timeful' state we find ourselves in. Wouldn't it be more logical to see the timeless state as being a primative precursor to the timeful state? Have we made this assumption because we seem to be so irrevocably embedded in the past-present-future arrow of a timeful state? This post is not directly addressing the issue of 'can eternity end?', but I think it would be helpful to first establish what we mean by the word 'eternity'. aguy2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patcalhoun Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 by definition eternity is never ending so no. this more of a philosophical question Its not so much philosophy as lexicography. Eternal, forever, and similar words in the vernacular doubly reference long but finite durations of time as well as the infinite interval. So the answer to his question is "pick a definition from the dictionary and get back to me." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xyph Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 You can start at any number you want and define a sequence that tends to infinity, even if you can't actually count to it. I don't think this would work in reverse, however. But infinities are logically inconceivable anyway. You're asking for the logical outcome of an illogical scenario. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xyph Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 xyph-- also a useful idea// yes eternity may be illogical, then i guess we'd be reduced to choosing the lesser of two evils. Does it make more sense for it to continue or for it to end? Are they equally illogical? are our only two options impossible?I'd say it makes more sense for it never to end. If it ends, it lacks something, and infinities that lack something are not true infinities. Also, mathematically, start from a negative infinity - what happens when you add something to it? You can go on adding for as long as you like, but you'll never reach zero. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Connor Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 What I believe is perhaps the most logical end for the universe is a state of extreme entropy, where few "useful" interactions occur. Although this isn't really and end, perhaps it is the final fate of the universe. However, due to attractive forces and the unpredictability of nature, I don't expect a completely static universe or one where matter is spread equally throughout. If all intelligent life in the universe becomes extinct, is that a sort of end for it? With no intelligence there is nobody to observe the universe, and although it will continue, no one really cares, just some thoughts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gcol Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 Connor: If all intelligent life in the universe becomes extinct, is that a sort of end for it? With no intelligence there is nobody to observe the universe, and although it will continue, no one really cares, A bit like this thread, then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aguy2 Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 aguy2- CAN SOMETHING WHICH NEVER BEGAN' date=' COME TO AN END?[/quote'] Yes, but its end would quite likely require voluntary, persistent, competent, volition. aguy2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aguy2 Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 What I believe is perhaps the most logical end for the universe is a state of extreme entropy This would be a logical end to the observable (sub)universe if the pre-inflationary era displayed little or no angular momentum and if the inflationary era expanded isometricly from its previous condition. aguy2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Connor Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 would you please explain that further, aguy2? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aguy2 Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 would you please explain that further, aguy2? If the pre-inflationary universe displayed a high degree of angular momentum (rapid rotation) the inflationary era might very well take the form of a matter and an anti-matter jet. If the matter jet (the observable universe) began to collapse (imagine the collapse of a column of water), to an observer within the matter sub-universe the initial stage of the collapse would appear as the observable universe does to us. Current evidence seems to indicate that the apparent expansion of the observable universe was slowing down up to 3.5 billion years ago, and then its apparent expansion began to accellerate. This model answers the questions: What is the source of conserved angular momentum? and Why isn't the observable universe half matter and half anti-matter? The model postulates oscillating sub-universes that are 3.5 billion years into their collapse cycle, and does so without any need for fudge factors like 'dark energy' or the reversal of graviational effects. aguy2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Connor Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 That is a very interesting idea - I will have to read up on it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amrit Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 universe is eternal, universe is a-temporal, time runs in the mind only see more: http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=4902 amrit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now