A Universe from Nothing?

[Ben Dhyan]

The difficulty here is that before General relativity appeared on the scene, it was your viewpoint that was standard. So, the inertia to be overcome is the inertia represented by your view that time must be infinite.

Second, the reasons you give for your position are not even close to being sufficient. In fact, they miss the basic point if, in fact, General relativity is correct.

Third, it is very, very dangerous to think you know how the universe 'must be' if you have no actual evidence for your position. Your claim that you are confident that a way out will be found is faith based on no evidence. You may be lucky and be correct, but you may also be unlucky and be wrong.

And fourth, general relativity is not to be summarily dismissed. It has passed all the tests it has been subjected to so far. That carries more weight than your philosophical arguments, no matter how definitive you think they are.

Fifth, studies into quantum gravity are part of the current orthodoxy. String theory, Loop quantum gravity, and other possibilities are being very actively pursued. At this point, NONE of the different alternatives has been able to make a testable prediction. Well, string theory predicts the existence of gravity. So *all* of them have to be taken with a huge grain of salt.

And finally, the *only* way out of the finiteness of time is if quantum effects overwhelm the general relativistic effects. Even with quantum gravity it is possible for time to be finite into the past. So to have confidence of the sort you have seems to be a HUGE over-reach of your reasoning.

I would suggest you might want to reconsider your dismissal of the possibility of finite time and ask why it follows so naturally from what we do know.

Polymaths, the day that science can explain how even one iota of the substance of the universe can be removed from existence, or that some substance not before ever existing can be created and added to what already exists, is the day I will reconsider. for now, the evidence is overwhelming that it is impossible and so logic and reason persuade me to stand firm to the understanding that the universe is eternal, without beginning or end.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

And yet, movement happens inside the universe. Repetition happens, and provides a basis for time. This is a part of how the universe is.

Yes, relative movement of differentiated aspects of the universe is the basis of time as conceived by the humans. That is how humans perceive the universe...from within, but the universe as a whole is unaffected by the theories and hypotheses derived from these perceptions. The apparent perceived parts and their cycles are a part of how the universe appears to be, but they will never describe the whole, for the universe is an indivisible one.

 

[Polymath257]

Polymaths, the day that science can explain how even one iota of the substance of the universe can be removed from existence, or that some substance not before ever existing can be created and added to what already exists, is the day I will reconsider. for now, the evidence is overwhelming that it is impossible and so logic and reason persuade me to stand firm to the understanding that the universe is eternal, without beginning or end.

Why do you think anything is being added to or subtracted from the universe in the finite time models? That is a misunderstanding of what the models say.

As you would say, the universe is a single entity. Time within that universe is finite in one or both directions, though.

As an analogy, thing of the surface of the Earth. It is a complete whole, but latitude starts at the south pole and ends at the north pole. The same happens for time and the universe (potentially).

 

[Polymath257]

Yes, relative movement of differentiated aspects of the universe is the basis of time as conceived by the humans. That is how humans perceive the universe...from within, but the universe as a whole is unaffected by the theories and hypotheses derived from these perceptions. The apparent perceived parts and their cycles are a part of how the universe appears to be, but they will never describe the whole, for the universe is an indivisible one.

If you take everything throughout space and time, I agree. And that is how general relativity treats it. Time and space are part of that universe. It is an entity unto itself. But time is finite in that entity.

 

[Thief]

And yet, movement happens inside the universe. Repetition happens, and provides a basis for time. This is a part of how the universe is.

so you heard about the science of Chaos?

 

[Thief]

If you take everything throughout space and time, I agree. And that is how general relativity treats it. Time and space are part of that universe. It is an entity unto itself. But time is finite in that entity.

time is not a force or substance

and do you have a copy of the General Theory of Relativity?
as per A. E.

you do seem to out on a limb believing numbers bring reality into being

 

[Thief]

Polymaths, the day that science can explain how even one iota of the substance of the universe can be removed from existence, or that some substance not before ever existing can be created and added to what already exists, is the day I will reconsider. for now, the evidence is overwhelming that it is impossible and so logic and reason persuade me to stand firm to the understanding that the universe is eternal, without beginning or end.

i must differ on that last iota.....
motion indicates a beginning

 

[Polymath257]

time is not a force or substance

You have not defined 'force' or 'substance'. Nor have you shown that they are the only things that are 'real'.

Until you do that, I will ignore the rest of posts like this one.

 

[Polymath257]

so you heard about the science of Chaos?

Chaos theory. Yes. Sensitive dependence on initial conditions. So?

 

[Polymath257]

i must differ on that last iota.....
motion indicates a beginning

Why?

 

[Thief]

Why?

like a child tugging at my pant leg.....why?

because it does

 

[Thief]

You have not defined 'force' or 'substance'. Nor have you shown that they are the only things that are 'real'.

Until you do that, I will ignore the rest of posts like this one.

use a dictionary.....close enough

 

[Thief]

as for your insistence about time.....use Wiki
close enough

 

[Polymath257]

like a child tugging at my pant leg.....why?

because it does

And, like a bad parent, you simply shut off discussion.

 

[Polymath257]

use a dictionary.....close enough

Not even close.

 

[Polymath257]

as for your insistence about time.....use Wiki
close enough

Why? You are here and, supposedly have a viewpoint to present. I prefer to hear what *you* have to say.

 

[Thief]

Why? You are here and, supposedly have a viewpoint to present. I prefer to hear what *you* have to say.

and you have....but that pivot question seems beyond you

Spirit first?
or substance?

and I think I have posted the consequence for the reply of 'substance'

 

[Polymath257]

and you have....but that pivot question seems beyond you

Spirit first?
or substance?

and I think I have posted the consequence for the reply of 'substance'

What is *your* definition of 'substance'? How about 'spirit'? No answers are possible until you answer this.

 

[Thief]

What is *your* definition of 'substance'? How about 'spirit'? No answers are possible until you answer this.

and your question brings appearance.....you're not up for this

 

[Polymath257]

and your question brings appearance.....you're not up for this

If you refuse to abide by the basis for discussion, there can be no discussion.