A Universe from Nothing?

[Thief]

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

and you are not the litmus test

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I also understand that there is natural inertia in academia and research areas, I mean the teaching professors and researchers of today can only work forward from what they learned and has been applied, and so orthodoxy prevails.

It is the customary fate of new truths to begin as heresies and to end as superstitions. - T.H. Huxley

You might like this quote as well:

• "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."- Max Planck

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Spirit first?
or substance?

As in which was legalized first? Spirits, following the end of prohibition.

The substance was only recently legalized for recreational use.

Forgive me. It's 4/20.

 

[ChristineM]

I am using the word time as representing the reality of the persistence of existence to continue to exist, not as a measurement of a finite segment of duration.

As to entropy, it is merely a human concept made to distinguish different theoretical/observed states of the universe existence, it says nothing about the cessation of the universal existence. The universe is one, and not one iota of whatever constitutes it can be taken out of it, nor any more added to it, for if so, where it go, and from where would it come?

Good day Ben, how goes it?

Are you... Wow, that is surprising because your post appear as though you are not accounting for the arrow of time but are simply using time in the hours minutes and seconds understanding.

The fact you don't understand entropy and that it exists at the fundamental level does explain your misunderstanding. Without entropy the universe would not exist, no galaxies, no suns, no time, life could not have occurred and evolution would be none existent.

You are thinking in 3 dimensions. There is nothing to say pre universe was 3 dimensions. In fact superstring theory predicts 10 or 11 (depending on which precise theory you prefer).

And in approximately 15 trillion years the universe will undergo heat death in which the individual photons will be so far apart that light will not be able to pass between them. Now imagine an observer on one of those photons, no matter where observation is made the observer will be utterly alone. No universe will exist.

But don't worry about it, entropy predicts that life can only exist for a small fraction of the time the universe is a universe. We'll not be here to get lonely

 

[Ben Dhyan]

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).

Because I understood that the finite models did not hold that the sum total of the mass of the universe is eternal.

The only finite time is that created in the human mind abstracted from the reality of an eternal universe, The same for the idea of time having two directions, the eternal now does not travel in either direction in reality, it merely exists eternally.

 

[Polymath257]

Because I understood that the finite models did not hold that the sum total of the mass of the universe is eternal.

In the sense of the word 'eternal' that it 'exists for all time', that is an incorrect statement.

The only finite time is that created in the human mind abstracted from the reality of an eternal universe, The same for the idea of time having two directions, the eternal now does not travel in either direction in reality, it merely exists eternally.

And, potentially, is finite in duration.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

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.

Only as an abstraction from eternity, by creating an idea of a finite segment of time period by measuring relative movement within the universe which has a beginning point to the measurement and an ending...and bingo...we have a year of time. The universe is not moving anywhere during this human conceived period of time, it never moves anywhere, it merely exists eternally without beginning or end.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

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

A particular motion within the universe may have a beginning as perceived my man, but the universe as a whole does not move.

 

[Polymath257]

A particular motion within the universe may have a beginning as perceived my man, but the universe as a whole does not move.

Fine. That doesn't change whether time can be finite or not. If time *is* finite, nothing enters or leaves the universe. If time is finite, the universe itself exists for all time. In *that* sense, it is eternal.

You make an assumption that time *must* be infinite. That assumption may or may not be true, but it is quite far from being as obvious as you claim it to be.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Good day Ben, how goes it?

Are you... Wow, that is surprising because your post appear as though you are not accounting for the arrow of time but are simply using time in the hours minutes and seconds understanding.

The fact you don't understand entropy and that it exists at the fundamental level does explain your misunderstanding. Without entropy the universe would not exist, no galaxies, no suns, no time, life could not have occurred and evolution would be none existent.

You are thinking in 3 dimensions. There is nothing to say pre universe was 3 dimensions. In fact superstring theory predicts 10 or 11 (depending on which precise theory you prefer).

And in approximately 15 trillion years the universe will undergo heat death in which the individual photons will be so far apart that light will not be able to pass between them. Now imagine an observer on one of those photons, no matter where observation is made the observer will be utterly alone. No universe will exist.

But don't worry about it, entropy predicts that life can only exist for a small fraction of the time the universe is a universe. We'll not be here to get lonely

Entropy is merely a human derived measurement of an aspect of the universe as seen from within, and thus is not directly relevant to my position on the nature to time. Time as understood by humans is an abstraction, it does not exist outside of the mind, what is present in reality is merely the universe existing as it is.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Fine. That doesn't change whether time can be finite or not. If time *is* finite, nothing enters or leaves the universe. If time is finite, the universe itself exists for all time. In *that* sense, it is eternal.

You make an assumption that time *must* be infinite. That assumption may or may not be true, but it is quite far from being as obvious as you claim it to be.

Ok, I mostly understand what you are saying and generally agree, but what does this mean..."If time *is* finite, nothing enters or leaves the universe.".

 

[Ben Dhyan]

In the sense of the word 'eternal' that it 'exists for all time', that is an incorrect statement.



And, potentially, is finite in duration.

So the finite models do hold that the sum total mass of the universe exists eternally?

 

[ChristineM]

Entropy is merely a human derived measurement of an aspect of the universe as seen from within, and thus is not directly relevant to my position on the nature to time. Time as understood by humans is an abstraction, it does not exist outside of the mind, what is present in reality is merely the universe existing as it is.

All words are human derived, that does not mean entropy does not exist, it existed long before humans thought up a name for it, in fact long before humans

Time is an aspect of entropy.

 

[Polymath257]

So the finite models do hold that the sum total mass of the universe exists eternally?

What, precisely, do you mean by 'eternally'? As I have explained, *if* what you mean is that it exists for all time, then yes.

 

[Polymath257]

Ok, I mostly understand what you are saying and generally agree, but what does this mean..."If time *is* finite, nothing enters or leaves the universe.".

In those models where time is finite, nothing enters or leaves the universe. There is still conservation of mass/energy. The universe exists throughout time.

 

[ChristineM]

In those models where time is finite, nothing enters or leaves the universe. There is still conservation of mass/energy. The universe exists throughout time.

Depends on whether you consider the volume to be a universe after the heat death of the universe. Sure the component energy and mass will exist in isolation but with such large distance between photons there can be no thermodynamic energy transfer and entropy will at it's maximum. The fate of the universe is maximum entropy.

 

[Polymath257]

Depends on whether you consider the volume to be a universe after the heat death of the universe. Sure the component energy and mass will exist in isolation but with such large distance between photons there can be no thermodynamic energy transfer and entropy will at it's maximum. The fate of the universe is maximum entropy.

Finite time universes don't last long enough for heat death, typically.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

All words are human derived, that does not mean entropy does not exist, it existed long before humans thought up a name for it, in fact long before humans

Time is an aspect of entropy.

I understand how you understand it, but I am explaining that the concept of time is meant to represent a measurement of change as seen from within the universe, it does not exist outside of the human mind. Now the relative change observed in any aspect of the universe is real, and we can measure it, but this is merely an aspect of the eternal nature of the indivisible universe, if there was not some relative change, we could not observe it, but the universe would still keep on keeping on.

What we call time is not something that exists as some independent real entity, but merely a concept related to our noticing relative change happening in the eternal movement of aspects of the universe, within an eternal changeless universe.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

What, precisely, do you mean by 'eternally'? As I have explained, *if* what you mean is that it exists for all time, then yes.

Yes, that's what I mean.

 

[Polymath257]

I understand how you understand it, but I am explaining that the concept of time is meant to represent a measurement of change as seen from within the universe, it does not exist outside of the human mind. Now the relative change observed in any aspect of the universe is real, and we can measure it, but this is merely an aspect of the eternal nature of the indivisible universe, if there was not some relative change, we could not observe it, but the universe would still keep on keeping on.

What we call time is not something that exists as some independent real entity, but merely a concept related to our noticing relative change happening in the eternal movement of aspects of the universe, within an eternal changeless universe.

I disagree. It is something that describes the fact that there *is* change (movement) in the universe. How those changes happen is part of the definition of time.