Is the past infinite?

[pzkpfw]

5 hours ago, fudgetusk said:

... Food goes in your mouth. Is a logical statement. ...

You should watch "The last tango in Paris"

(And do that course in logic.)

 

[Strange]

11 minutes ago, Itoero said:

'Infinity'  throws away all boundaries and rules.

Boundaries maybe. Rules, definitely not.

[Tub]

On 12/2/2017 at 11:48 AM, fudgetusk said:

Some believe the universe has always existed in some form. This is about getting around the idea of something coming from nothing. I  have a problem with the idea. How did we get to now? An infinite amount of time is impossible to cross just as an infinite amount of space is impossible to cross. And yet people believe there is an infinite amount of time before this point we call NOW. How did we get to NOW? Seems to me that if you figure in an infinite past then no event can ever happen because it can always be set back infinitely. Not my idea but the idea of a greek philosopher.

That philosopher may have been Anaximander, sometimes known as " The Father of Cosmology ", who was said to be the first to embrace the concept of infinity:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apeiron_(cosmology)

Even if it wasn't him and it was some other philosopher, the idea that " no event can ever happen "  would mean that he never said that anyway but the fact that he did completely contradicts him.

[Itoero]

What does it really mean if time is infinite or not? It might be there are time quanta...chronons.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronon

Time dilation is a difference in the elapsed time measured by two observers, either due to a velocity difference relative to each other, or by being differently situated relative to a gravitational field. In gravitational time dilation, time interacts with a gravitational field...light also interact with a gravitational field.

It seems to me there are time quanta and that time is not a continuum.

[Strange]

34 minutes ago, Itoero said:

It seems to me there are time quanta and that time is not a continuum.

That may be true. But there is no evidence for it yet. (Unfortunately, perhaps.)

[fudgetusk]

On ‎05‎/‎12‎/‎2017 at 2:13 PM, Strange said:

Not at all. I have no idea why you would think that.

People with "personal theories" base don belief rather than evidence always seem to think they are frightening people or making them angry with their "dangerous new ideas". The which the only response is: pfffft.

But we aren't talking about a "given frame of reference", we are talking about a hypothetical creation event. So that argument doesn't apply. You need to read up on the difficulty of applying that "law" to the whole universe as described by GR.

But, then again, the net energy of the universe could be zero so no energy was created.

The zero energy hypothesis.

It isn't now. But it would have been before. 

I don't know much about Kaku, but the little I have seen of his popular science writings should be ignored as sensationalistic nonsense.

You have no evidence for this beyond your personal beliefs. Not a good basis for science.

Therefore the universe doesn't exist? 

You really need to sharpen up your critical thinking skills. Honestly, it is not "getting hot under the collar" to point out the enormous benefits of studying logic, rather than just saying that if you belief something then it is "logical".

Common sense is the enemy of science and rational thought in general.

You think you are countering my arguments...but are not. I have no idea what you think you are doing but you aren't actually saying anything. You fail to understand the basic concept of there being only two options for where we came from. Both illogical. For you to be right you need to prove that nothing can become something. The zero energy hypothesis is not nothing. It involves matter being cancelled out. The matter is still there. This is ersatz nothingness. Scientific flim flam. LOts of people fell for it. Not me.  

"The zero-energy universe hypothesis proposes that the total amount of energy in the universe is exactly zero: its amount of positive energy in the form of matter is exactly canceled out by its negative energy in the form of gravity.^[1][2]"

On ‎05‎/‎12‎/‎2017 at 6:37 PM, pzkpfw said:

You should watch "The last tango in Paris"

(And do that course in logic.)

 

I never said food ONLY goes in the mouth. Might I suggest a course in basic English?

On ‎06‎/‎12‎/‎2017 at 12:51 PM, Tub said:

That philosopher may have been Anaximander, sometimes known as " The Father of Cosmology ", who was said to be the first to embrace the concept of infinity:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apeiron_(cosmology)

Even if it wasn't him and it was some other philosopher, the idea that " no event can ever happen "  would mean that he never said that anyway but the fact that he did completely contradicts him.

He was ruling out the idea of an infinite past. The other option must be true although still illogical. Ergo something insane happened. Beyond logic.illogical.

On ‎05‎/‎12‎/‎2017 at 1:53 PM, dimreepr said:

You won't find any.

Your belief is irrelevant, the universe exists it's here.

Science depends on data, "when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth". 

I have found it. You just cannot admit it to yourself. Please explain where the universe came from. If you think you have the answer why are scientists continually coming up with new theories? Because they haven't found the answer. Never will.

Edited December 11, 2017 by fudgetusk

[Strange]

11 minutes ago, fudgetusk said:

You fail to understand the basic concept of there being only two options for where we came from.

Given that there a many different hypotheses and speculations about the origin (or otherwise) of the universe made by very brilliant people, I don't know how you can narrow it down to just two.

12 minutes ago, fudgetusk said:

Both illogical.

I think you mean "neither of which make sense". You haven't presented a logical argument.

13 minutes ago, fudgetusk said:

For you to be right you need to prove that nothing can become something.

Nope. I am merely stating that (1) your belief that is impossible may be incorrect and (2) the universe may not have come from nothing.

It is up to you to demonstrate that the universe must have come from nothing and that it is impossible. So far, all we have is your personal incredulity / belief.

14 minutes ago, fudgetusk said:

The zero energy hypothesis is not nothing. It involves matter being cancelled out. The matter is still there.

I guess you didn't understand what it says. The matter is there now. It wasn't there when there was zero energy before the universe was created. Neither was the negative energy that cancels it out. So the hypothesis starts with nothing. From that it creates equal and opposite positive (matter and energy) and negative (potential energy) parts.

You appear to be dismissing it for no valid reason.

17 minutes ago, fudgetusk said:

Because they haven't found the answer. Never will.

They may or they may not. To assume they won't (because it would conflict with your beliefs?) is the height of anti-science.

[dimreepr]

27 minutes ago, fudgetusk said:

I have found it. You just cannot admit it to yourself. Please explain where the universe came from. If you think you have the answer why are scientists continually coming up with new theories? Because they haven't found the answer. Never will.

 

What have you found? And what evidence do you have? 

You know what, I don't really care because you're obviously a crackpot and if you really did have the answer, you'd post a paper with the relevant data/evidence; rather than talk bollox and challenge an obvious layman such as myself. 

No disrespect to Strange and his attempt to correct your BS.

[Strange]

46 minutes ago, fudgetusk said:

I have found it. You just cannot admit it to yourself. Please explain where the universe came from. If you think you have the answer why are scientists continually coming up with new theories?

No one, apart from you, claims to know where the universe came from. And you have failed to provide any logical argument beyond personal incredulity to support your beliefs.

So I am going to stick with "don't know". Thanks anyway.

[fudgetusk]

23 hours ago, Strange said:

Given that there a many different hypotheses and speculations about the origin (or otherwise) of the universe made by very brilliant people, I don't know how you can narrow it down to just two.

I think you mean "neither of which make sense". You haven't presented a logical argument.

Nope. I am merely stating that (1) your belief that is impossible may be incorrect and (2) the universe may not have come from nothing.

It is up to you to demonstrate that the universe must have come from nothing and that it is impossible. So far, all we have is your personal incredulity / belief.

I guess you didn't understand what it says. The matter is there now. It wasn't there when there was zero energy before the universe was created. Neither was the negative energy that cancels it out. So the hypothesis starts with nothing. From that it creates equal and opposite positive (matter and energy) and negative (potential energy) parts.

You appear to be dismissing it for no valid reason.

They may or they may not. To assume they won't (because it would conflict with your beliefs?) is the height of anti-science.

Yep. You don't get it. All the theories of where the universe come from fall into the two categories. Which I have told you. Actually they all fall into one category: The idea that the universe has always existed. There is no one speculating about something coming from nothing.

I don't know what YOU think the word logical means but it isn't the meaning every one else has. Sense and logic are the same. You are coming from the view that if it happens it is logical even if it goes against science and common sense. This is child logic. With an agenda. You cannot face the facts so you use semantics to try and win back the argument. All you are doing is demonstrating your fear.

I have demonstrated that the universe came from nothing by the process of elimination. Again you say nothing of any substance. You are indulging in flim flam. just as most scientists do when they encounter things they cannot understand.

>>The matter is there now. It wasn't there when there was zero energy before the universe was created. Neither was the negative energy that cancels it out. So the hypothesis starts with nothing. From that it creates equal and opposite positive (matter and energy) and negative (potential energy) parts.

Meaningless. If I can scratch SOME logic from this nonsensical statement you are saying nothing became zero energy? This is still something coming from nothing. Which is impossible and yet happened.

 

>>They may or they may not. To assume they won't (because it would conflict with your beliefs?) is the height of anti-science.

If you truly understood what I am saying, which you clearly don't(won't?) then you would know I am right.

23 hours ago, dimreepr said:

What have you found? And what evidence do you have? 

You know what, I don't really care because you're obviously a crackpot and if you really did have the answer, you'd post a paper with the relevant data/evidence; rather than talk bollox and challenge an obvious layman such as myself. 

No disrespect to Strange and his attempt to correct your BS.

Again you have failed to understand the problem. All the evidence is on this thread. There are only two options of where the universe came from. Strange is so without understanding that she/he thinks there are more. She does not get that all the theories fall into two ideas. But what can I expect from an internet forum. I was deluded in thinking that you guys would be actual scientists. HAH! Boy was I wrong.  AGAIN, there are only two ways the universe could come about. Either from nothing or it always existed. If you do not agree with this then PLEASE tell me the third option because nobody else has come up with one. There isn't one. We have eliminated the latter option. So therefore the universe came from nothing.

FACT. But ignore all I've said and talk BS. 

23 hours ago, Strange said:

No one, apart from you, claims to know where the universe came from. And you have failed to provide any logical argument beyond personal incredulity to support your beliefs.

So I am going to stick with "don't know". Thanks anyway.

Yes, I get it. You don't understand what I'm saying.

[dimreepr]

11 minutes ago, fudgetusk said:

All the evidence is on this thread.

1

Where? All words and no maths make fudge(tusk), good name if you're trying to be ironic, I turned off my meter, just in case.

[Strange]

25 minutes ago, fudgetusk said:

There is no one speculating about something coming from nothing.

Lawrence Kraus? Stephen Hawking? I guess they don't count.

26 minutes ago, fudgetusk said:

I don't know what YOU think the word logical means but it isn't the meaning every one else has. Sense and logic are the same.

Oddly, as this is a science site and you posted in the philosophy forum, I thought you might be using the word "logic" with its proper meaning. But, thanks for confirming that you are just using it to describe things that make sense to you. This is a totally useless way of judging a hypothesis and the complete antithesis of science. 

But knock yourself out.

28 minutes ago, fudgetusk said:

nothing became zero energy?

Nothing has zero energy. The proposal is that you can create equal amounts of positive and negative energy (so the total is still zero). 

But feel free to ignore it. There isn't really any evidence for it.

33 minutes ago, fudgetusk said:

I was deluded in thinking that you guys would be actual scientists. HAH! Boy was I wrong.

There are a few scientists here. But most members are just people with an interest in science. Not sure what you are doing here as you appear to have no interest. Whatever.

34 minutes ago, fudgetusk said:

AGAIN, there are only two ways the universe could come about. Either from nothing or it always existed

That is such a broad generalisation as to be pretty much useless. But if that s as far as your understanding goes, and you aren't interested in learning more, then that's fine.

37 minutes ago, fudgetusk said:

We have eliminated the latter option. So therefore the universe came from nothing.

You have eliminated it by saying you don't believe it / can't understand it. Meh. But if you want to believe the universe came from nothing, then fine. I don't suppose anyone cares much what you believe.

38 minutes ago, fudgetusk said:

Yes, I get it. You don't understand what I'm saying.

If you are so convinced no one understands you (rather than simply disagreeing with you) then perhaps you need to make your case more clearly. For example, it isn't helpful to just say "I have already said/explained ..." It would, perhaps, be more effective to expand on or provide an alternative explanation for those who don't get it.

However, it seems to be a common tendency for those with their own unscientific "theories" based on common sense and belief to insist that the only reason people disagree is because they don't understand. Or they are scared by it ... oooooh ... an alternative idea, badly expressed .... so scary ...

[Silvestru]

I'm starting to think philosophy nuts are replacing religious nuts lately when it comes to denying science.

To be honest, I haven't seen/met a religious person fighting the war on science in a long time but I (I am a layman but even I) get surprised at least once a week in the philosophy thread.

Apologies, I just wanted to make this observation.

[Itoero]

On ‎12‎-‎12‎-‎2017 at 4:25 PM, Silvestru said:

Apologies

accepted

[Eise]

On 02/12/2017 at 12:48 PM, fudgetusk said:

How did we get to NOW? Seems to me that if you figure in an infinite past then no event can ever happen because it can always be set back infinitely. Not my idea but the idea of a greek philosopher.

 

On 05/12/2017 at 1:34 PM, fudgetusk said:

It wasn't Zeno. His name began with A. he showed there were only two options of where the universe came from and both were illogical.

I assume it was Immanuel Kant, so not a Greek philosopher, and doesn't begin with an 'A', but at least has an 'A' in it.

See here (huge pdf), pages 470 (483 in the pdf) and 471:

Quote

Thesis: The world has a beginning in time, and in space it is also enclosed in boundaries.

Proof: For if one assumes that the world has no beginning in time, then up to every given point in time an eternity has elapsed, and hence an infinite series of states of things in the world, each following another, has passed away. But now the infinity of a series consists precisely in the fact that it can never be completed through a successive synthesis. Therefore an infinitely elapsed world-series is impossible, so a beginning of the world is a necessary condition of its existence; which was the first point to be proved.

Antithesis: The world has no beginning and no bounds in space, but is infinite with regard to both time and space.

Proof: For suppose that it has a beginning. Since the beginning is an existence preceded by a time in which the thing is not, there must be a preceding time in which the world was not, i.e., an empty time. But now no arising of any sort of thing is possible in an empty time, because no part of such a time has, in itself, prior to another part, any distinguishing condition of its existence rather than its non-existence (whether one assumes that it comes to be of itself or through another cause). Thus many series of things may begin in the world, but the world itself cannot have any beginning, and so in past time it is infinite.

 

Edited December 15, 2017 by Eise

[Thinkbigger!!!!!]

Think bigger than infinity. Time, beginnings and endings, distance, speed. These are all human CONCEPTS. If you want enlightenment you've got to think bigger than an infinite universe.

[Strange]

7 minutes ago, Thinkbigger!!!!! said:

Think bigger than infinity. Time, beginnings and endings, distance, speed. These are all human CONCEPTS. If you want enlightenment you've got to think bigger than an infinite universe.

What does "bigger then infinite" mean? Do you even know what "infinite" means? Sheesh.

[Thinkbigger!!!!!]

 I know what is commonly referred to as infinite.

Arguing infinity is pointless. What I want to coax out of you is a theory on something bigger than infinity.

[studiot]

On 12/12/2017 at 2:29 PM, fudgetusk said:

Yep. You don't get it. All the theories of where the universe come from fall into the two categories. Which I have told you.

 

Poincare had a hypothesis, different from either of these.

Which is interesting because we actually acknowledge an example of this in a physical variable other than time.

 

Bishop Berkeley has yet another hypothesis, which interestingly is compatible with the Copenhagen interpretation, though it predates it by nearly two hundred years.

You should read, Berkely because he also expressed a view on ioinion, similar to yours, although I should warn you his philosophies have been largely discredited today.

Edited December 20, 2017 by studiot

[Strange]

28 minutes ago, Thinkbigger!!!!! said:

 I know what is commonly referred to as infinite.

How about the proper definition, rather than "what is commonly known as"?

Quote

Arguing infinity is pointless. What I want to coax out of you is a theory on something bigger than infinity.

So you don't know what infinity means.

Quote

What I want to coax out of you...

This comes across as both arrogant and condescending. I'm sure you don't mean it that way, but please be more careful with your words. If you have something to say, just say it. Don't act coy.

Edited December 20, 2017 by Strange

[DrP]

On ‎12‎/‎12‎/‎2017 at 2:29 PM, fudgetusk said:

 Sense and logic are the same.

Except we know senses can be fooled...  logic just looks at what is possible and rules out what is not and draws no conclusions when there is insufficient data. In fact, logic looks at nothing - it is just a tool used for analysis.

[Strange]

On 20/12/2017 at 10:57 AM, studiot said:

Bishop Berkeley has yet another hypothesis, which interestingly is compatible with the Copenhagen interpretation, though it predates it by nearly two hundred years.

I guess that is similar to John Wheeler's "participatory universe" concept.

 

[studiot]

2 hours ago, Strange said:

I guess that is similar to John Wheeler's "participatory universe" concept.

 

 

I was thinking of this quote

Quote

Wikipedia

Philosopher George Berkeley, in his work, A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge (1710), proposes, "But, say you, surely there is nothing easier than for me to imagine trees, for instance, in a park [...] and nobody by to perceive them.^[1] [...] The objects of sense exist only when they are perceived; the trees therefore are in the garden [...] no longer than while there is somebody by to perceive them."^[2]

 

Basically this is still being argued in Quantum Physics and offered as one explanation of quantum Uncertainty / waveform collapse.

 

It is the same view that Einstein rejected with his comment about "does the Moon cease to exist when I stop looking at it", except that in Berkeley's case nobody was observing.

Yes Wheeler's thought offer another version.

 

Any of these versions have serious implications for Schrodingers cat.

 

Suppose we vary the experiment slightly.

Let it proceed as per Schrodinger until the box is opened.
Let the opening be delayed at least 50 years.

There will then be a feline corpse in the box, but it will be impossible to pinpoint the precise date of decease of the animal.

Edited December 21, 2017 by studiot

[sci-man]

On 12/5/2017 at 9:09 AM, Strange said:

Pictures or it didn't happen!

ok challenge accepted 

[fudgetusk]

On ‎12‎/‎12‎/‎2017 at 3:10 PM, Strange said:

Lawrence Kraus? Stephen Hawking? I guess they don't count.

Oddly, as this is a science site and you posted in the philosophy forum, I thought you might be using the word "logic" with its proper meaning. But, thanks for confirming that you are just using it to describe things that make sense to you. This is a totally useless way of judging a hypothesis and the complete antithesis of science. 

But knock yourself out.

Nothing has zero energy. The proposal is that you can create equal amounts of positive and negative energy (so the total is still zero). 

But feel free to ignore it. There isn't really any evidence for it.

There are a few scientists here. But most members are just people with an interest in science. Not sure what you are doing here as you appear to have no interest. Whatever.

That is such a broad generalisation as to be pretty much useless. But if that s as far as your understanding goes, and you aren't interested in learning more, then that's fine.

You have eliminated it by saying you don't believe it / can't understand it. Meh. But if you want to believe the universe came from nothing, then fine. I don't suppose anyone cares much what you believe.

If you are so convinced no one understands you (rather than simply disagreeing with you) then perhaps you need to make your case more clearly. For example, it isn't helpful to just say "I have already said/explained ..." It would, perhaps, be more effective to expand on or provide an alternative explanation for those who don't get it.

However, it seems to be a common tendency for those with their own unscientific "theories" based on common sense and belief to insist that the only reason people disagree is because they don't understand. Or they are scared by it ... oooooh ... an alternative idea, badly expressed .... so scary ...

Lawrence Kraus? Stephen Hawking?

(Do you mean Krauss?)And what do they believe happened?  I know Krauss wrote a book but what EXACTLY does he say about 'nothing'?(update: just listened to him on youtube talking about how the total energy of the universe is zero. so this is the same theory you already presented. which is BS except to those who NEED to believe it. 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.

Edited January 11, 2018 by fudgetusk