Is the past infinite?

[dimreepr]

32 minutes ago, fudgetusk said:

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.

 

Time is part of the universe, so there is no before; did you exist before you existed? 

 

[fudgetusk]

3 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Time is part of the universe, so there is no before; did you exist before you existed? 

 

Exactly. time began at a certain point. from nothing. absolute nothing. not the ersatz nothing Krauss is espousing. which contains gravity and dimensions.

[Strange]

51 minutes ago, fudgetusk said:

which is BS except to those who NEED to believe it.

Just saying it is BS is not a very productive argument. Perhaps you could provide some more (ideally mathematical) detail to support that view?

Quote

Balance between matter and antimatter is not nothing.

As far as I know that has nothing to do with the zero energy universe. Perhaps you explain why you mention it?

53 minutes ago, fudgetusk said:

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.

There are all sorts of possibilities. For example:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1404.3093v3

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekpyrotic_universe

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_inflation

 

14 minutes ago, fudgetusk said:

Exactly. time began at a certain point. from nothing. absolute nothing.

I though you said that was impossible?

[dimreepr]

3 minutes ago, fudgetusk said:

Exactly. time began at a certain point. from nothing. absolute nothing. not the ersatz nothing Krauss is espousing. which contains gravity and dimensions.

You're missing the point, there is no begin.

[Carrock]

On 11/01/2018 at 3:01 PM, fudgetusk said:

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.

Why would you need to cross an infinite amount of time? (Actually photons can cross infinite time according to very robust theory; are they irrelevant?)

You seem to be saying that because we can't in any way reach the infinite past or future they cannot exist and duration must be finite. This is a philosophical belief; i.e. it's not science.

When matter (or a person) crosses a black hole's event horizon it can never again reach the rest of the universe. Does that mean the rest of the universe no longer exists? Does the rest of the universe still exist for other matter?

[beecee]

On 1/12/2018 at 2:01 AM, fudgetusk said:

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.

Firstly gravity is spacetime, which evolved from what we know as the BB. Having come in late in this thread, let me say with utmost certainty at this time, cosmologists do not know how or why the universe came to be. But they can reasonably speculate....I like the following reasoning. https://www.astrosociety.org/publication/a-universe-from-nothing/

Let me add that perhaps your definition of nothing should be revised, as hinted at in the extract from the above..."What produced the energy before inflation? This is perhaps the ultimate question. As crazy as it might seem, the energy may have come out of nothing! The meaning of “nothing” is somewhat ambiguous here. It might be the vacuum in some pre-existing space and time, or it could be nothing at all – that is, all concepts of space and time were created with the universe itself"

"Quantum theory, and specifically Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, provide a natural explanation for how that energy may have come out of nothing. Throughout the universe, particles and antiparticles spontaneously form and quickly annihilate each other without violating the law of energy conservation". 

Obviously the universe being the "ultimate free lunch" at least to me, appears to be the only real answer in the absence of as yet, any evidence. Much the same way as Abiogenesis is really the only scientific answer as to how life came to be.

 

On 12/5/2017 at 11:34 PM, fudgetusk said:

. I believe there is no logical explanation of where the universe came from. Scientists seem to have no answer. They are tackling the question with science, which is dependant on logic. They will never find an answer. Which means things like magic may be real too.

Just because at this time we have no empirical evidence of where the universe came from [other then the BB and spacetime as we know it] does not mean that there is no logical explanation. I just gave you a link to one.

Then you are saying the universe came from nothing, which is illogical.

On face value and to a lay person that may seem illogical. But to a professional scientist, there certainly is logical scenarios as to how the universe came to be.

Quote

I bet you will now say "maybe there is no such thing as nothing."

It's your definition of nothing that needs reappraisal.

 

 

[fudgetusk]

On ‎11‎/‎01‎/‎2018 at 4:01 PM, Strange said:

Just saying it is BS is not a very productive argument. Perhaps you could provide some more (ideally mathematical) detail to support that view?

As far as I know that has nothing to do with the zero energy universe. Perhaps you explain why you mention it?

There are all sorts of possibilities. For example:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1404.3093v3

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekpyrotic_universe

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_inflation

 

I though you said that was impossible?

Why do I even need to demonstrate why it is BS when it is obvious?  I am asking for a theory that starts with true nothing. You do not seem to understand this English word. Because you are damaged. YOu have been damaged by scientists. They have said "here's nothing" and shown you a picture of something. They've done that so many times you've developed Stockholm syndrome. The theory of zero energy is not nothing(with me so far?) it is a balance of positive and negative that results in a state of nothing. (got that?) true nothing would have no particles. no gravity. You've been had. KRauss is a liar and he's lying to scores of people when he claims he has discovered how the universe came from nothing.

 

Your examples do not explain how the universe could always have existed. They simply show ways in which the universe changed. YOur first example is beyond me. I doubt you can explain it either. Please do.

Let me rephrase the question. Tell me how an infinite amount of time can be crossed.

And yes I am saying it is impossible to make something out of nothing. You cannot go from zero to one without adding a one from somewhere. I'm saying this still happened but it should not be considered a rational act. it is not something that can be explained by science.

On ‎11‎/‎01‎/‎2018 at 4:06 PM, dimreepr said:

You're missing the point, there is no begin.

That's not what you said.

On ‎12‎/‎01‎/‎2018 at 11:48 PM, Carrock said:

Why would you need to cross an infinite amount of time? (Actually photons can cross infinite time according to very robust theory; are they irrelevant?)

You seem to be saying that because we can't in any way reach the infinite past or future they cannot exist and duration must be finite. This is a philosophical belief; i.e. it's not science.

When matter (or a person) crosses a black hole's event horizon it can never again reach the rest of the universe. Does that mean the rest of the universe no longer exists? Does the rest of the universe still exist for other matter?

Why are you people not able to read what I've already explained?

If the universe always existed then that means there is infinite time before this point in time. To get to NOW you will need to cross an infinite amount of time, which is impossible.

Prove photons can cross 'infinite time'. I expect you not to.

[Strange]

4 minutes ago, fudgetusk said:

And yes I am saying it is impossible to make something out of nothing.

And you're saying it is impossible for the universe to have always existed.

So, from the principium tertii exclusi we can conclude that the universe doesn't exist. Is that correct?

6 minutes ago, fudgetusk said:

Prove photons can cross 'infinite time'.

Why should they need to? In our current cosmological models, they have only existed for about 13 billion years.

[fudgetusk]

On ‎13‎/‎01‎/‎2018 at 12:36 AM, beecee said:

Firstly gravity is spacetime, which evolved from what we know as the BB. Having come in late in this thread, let me say with utmost certainty at this time, cosmologists do not know how or why the universe came to be. But they can reasonably speculate....I like the following reasoning. https://www.astrosociety.org/publication/a-universe-from-nothing/

Let me add that perhaps your definition of nothing should be revised, as hinted at in the extract from the above..."What produced the energy before inflation? This is perhaps the ultimate question. As crazy as it might seem, the energy may have come out of nothing! The meaning of “nothing” is somewhat ambiguous here. It might be the vacuum in some pre-existing space and time, or it could be nothing at all – that is, all concepts of space and time were created with the universe itself"

"Quantum theory, and specifically Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, provide a natural explanation for how that energy may have come out of nothing. Throughout the universe, particles and antiparticles spontaneously form and quickly annihilate each other without violating the law of energy conservation". 

Obviously the universe being the "ultimate free lunch" at least to me, appears to be the only real answer in the absence of as yet, any evidence. Much the same way as Abiogenesis is really the only scientific answer as to how life came to be.

 

Just because at this time we have no empirical evidence of where the universe came from [other then the BB and spacetime as we know it] does not mean that there is no logical explanation. I just gave you a link to one.

Then you are saying the universe came from nothing, which is illogical.

On face value and to a lay person that may seem illogical. But to a professional scientist, there certainly is logical scenarios as to how the universe came to be.

It's your definition of nothing that needs reappraisal.

 

 

The same arguments I already answered Pal. Go up and read. And why do they call it nothing if it is not nothing? why are they lying? because they are desperate to prove that something came from nothing. they can't so they lie and you believe it.

I'm saying the world came from nothing but we should not regard this as a logical act. It cannot be explained by science and science should not be allowed to downplay this fact.

If nothing is really something then we have to return to the only other option: that something existed for ever. But then we have to explain how an infinite amount of time could be crossed to get to now(read the thread if this does not make sense)

3 minutes ago, Strange said:

And you're saying it is impossible for the universe to have always existed.

So, from the principium tertii exclusi we can conclude that the universe doesn't exist. Is that correct?

Why should they need to? In our current cosmological models, they have only existed for about 13 billion years.

No. Christ. Am I talking a foreign language? Are you all Polish? I am saying there is no explanation of where the universe came from.

 

I'm not saying photons have crossed infinite time. This other guy is. They haven't. They couldn't. Because infinite time is impossible to cross.

[dimreepr]

11 minutes ago, fudgetusk said:

No. Christ. Am I talking a foreign language? Are you all Polish? I am saying there is no explanation of where the universe came from.

 

Since this is in philosophy, then yes you do seem to be; as has been pointed out by respected members here, there are explanations of where the universe came from. 

18 minutes ago, fudgetusk said:

I'm not saying photons have crossed infinite time. This other guy is. They haven't. They couldn't. Because infinite time is impossible to cross.

Philosophically speaking there are a number of explanations of the infinite.

[Strange]

33 minutes ago, fudgetusk said:

I am saying there is no explanation of where the universe came from.

And so?

We should stop trying to find one? Or do you mean there can be no explanation?

[Phi for All]

44 minutes ago, fudgetusk said:

No. Christ. Am I talking a foreign language? Are you all Polish?

!

Moderator Note

Slurs against any group aren't welcome here. It's in the rules you agreed to when you joined. Do it again and you'll be banned, just to be crystal clear.

 

[Lord Antares]

53 minutes ago, fudgetusk said:

No. Christ. Am I talking a foreign language? Are you all Polish? I am saying there is no explanation of where the universe came from.

No shit Sherlock. Next you will be telling me we have no evidence for life after death. What is it really that you are contributing here, except for your abrasive  attitude towards those more knowledgeable than yourself?

Edited January 15, 2018 by Lord Antares

[Carrock]

53 minutes ago, fudgetusk said:

Why are you people not able to read what I've already explained?

If the universe always existed then that means there is infinite time before this point in time. To get to NOW you will need to cross an infinite amount of time, which is impossible.

Prove photons can cross 'infinite time'. I expect you not to.

You still haven't explained why you have to start in the infinite past. It's similar to my saying you don't exist because you couldn't get here from a billion years ago or from Andromeda.

I never claimed that photons can cross 'infinite time'.

If you want to demonstrate they can't, just show that they have finite range i.e, they somehow cease to exist within finite time (assuming no interaction with another particle).

[fudgetusk]

On ‎15‎/‎01‎/‎2018 at 4:28 PM, Strange said:

And so?

We should stop trying to find one? Or do you mean there can be no explanation?

There is no explanation. How could there be? Therefore we need to see that the universe is capable of being illogical. This opens the door for all things weird.

On ‎15‎/‎01‎/‎2018 at 4:51 PM, Carrock said:

You still haven't explained why you have to start in the infinite past. It's similar to my saying you don't exist because you couldn't get here from a billion years ago or from Andromeda.

I never claimed that photons can cross 'infinite time'.

If you want to demonstrate they can't, just show that they have finite range i.e, they somehow cease to exist within finite time (assuming no interaction with another particle).

I'll start again. There are only two options(forget what Hawking says: his third  explanation is deliberately over complicated and impossible to grasp)either something came from nothing or something always existed. These two options cover all the bases. And they shape each other. Now if we realise that something cannot come from nothing(logically) then the past must be infinite and HAVE NO BEGINNING. The fabric that makes up our universe must be infinitely old and HAVE NO BEGINNING. No point where it didn't exist. Which means that any point in time no matter how far you go back or forward has an infinity of time before it. So ANY point in the timeline has crossed an infinite amount of time. It has infinite amount of time BEFORE it.

This is impossible. Never mind that HAVING NO BEGINNING is impossible.

Now, unless someone can convince me that Hawking came up with a viable third option as he claims then the only way the universe could come about is impossible. I personally believe it came from nothing because that is simpler, but still illogical.

[Strange]

11 minutes ago, fudgetusk said:

This is impossible. Never mind that HAVING NO BEGINNING is impossible.

This appears to be an argument from incredulity. Can you provide any evidence or rational argument that it is not possible?

Perhaps, to reverse the logic of The Princess Bride, you mean inconceivable?

12 minutes ago, fudgetusk said:

Now, unless someone can convince me that Hawking came up with a viable third option as he claims then the only way the universe could come about is impossible. I personally believe it came from nothing because that is simpler, but still illogical.

Note that when Hawking and others refer to the universe being created from "nothing", they do not mean a complete absence of anything. They are referring to a pre-existing quantum vacuum with non-zero energy (because it is a quantum vacuum). And that previous state would have had to exist for some, possibly an infinite, time beforehand. 

 

A third option that you are ignoring is that a god or gods did it. 

Another option is that it is a simulation created by aliens. Or future humans. Or gods.

Or the universe is nothing like you think it is because you are lying in hospital in a coma after a hoverboard accident on one of the moons of Garglepox IV.

[Silvestru]

1 hour ago, Strange said:

A third option that you are ignoring is that a god or gods did it. 

Another option is that it is a simulation created by aliens. Or future humans. Or gods.

Or the universe is nothing like you think it is because you are lying in hospital in a coma after a hoverboard accident on one of the moons of Garglepox IV.

Haha this broke my system. 

1 hour ago, fudgetusk said:

I personally believe it came from nothing because that is simpler

You have a real knack for science. 

1 hour ago, fudgetusk said:

Never mind that HAVING NO BEGINNING is impossible.

I'm sure this conclusion was reached after much research. What about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_return

Quote

 If space and time are infinite, then it follows logically that our existence must recur an infinite number of times.

This theory has absolutely no observational evidence behind it but I am sure you wont mind. Just food for thought.

Edited March 29, 2018 by Silvestru

[tmx3]

On 12/2/2017 at 6:48 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.

Perhaps it always exists in the sense that, if we have to trace back to it, we can (e.g.: fossils of past remains). The evidence is there. Because the evidence is there, it does exist and in some ways can be reached to validate its existence again. 

Seems as if life is ultimately a state of being. We get to the “now,” because we exist in the now. When we, with our experiences and consciousness and so on, do not exist then someone else after us (and before us) does exist with their own experience and consciousness and state of being which makes the past the past, the present the present, and the future the future infinitely. This isn’t directed just to living animals—I’m referring to energy as well. We collectively and continuously cross an infinite space-time by existing in our own point in time: a generation of beings after another generation of beings (i.e., your grandparents took up space-time between 1920s and 2000s, your parents may have taken up space-time between 1970s to current date, and you may have taken up space-time between 1990s to current date and into the future, and so on—and the same is true in the opposite direction, your great grandparents and great-great grandparents and great-great-great grandparents and so on)! And, again, this idea is not restricted to just people or living beings, but to nonliving matter as well. 

As for crossing an infinite amount of time or space, we are lifeforms that are limited in time and space. Maybe some being composed of a different kind of existence can experience infinity in a way that we cannot, and therefore that kind of indefinitely-existing being/lifeform can potentially travel along this infinite space-time—which is something we cannot do. 

However, you can understand the notion of infinity. If you can understand the notion of infinity, you have already crossed space-time. 

*Mic drop*

Can you send a link to the philosopher’s writing? 

[fudgetusk]

On ‎29‎/‎03‎/‎2018 at 2:05 PM, Strange said:

This appears to be an argument from incredulity. Can you provide any evidence or rational argument that it is not possible?

Perhaps, to reverse the logic of The Princess Bride, you mean inconceivable?

Note that when Hawking and others refer to the universe being created from "nothing", they do not mean a complete absence of anything. They are referring to a pre-existing quantum vacuum with non-zero energy (because it is a quantum vacuum). And that previous state would have had to exist for some, possibly an infinite, time beforehand. 

 

A third option that you are ignoring is that a god or gods did it. 

Another option is that it is a simulation created by aliens. Or future humans. Or gods.

Or the universe is nothing like you think it is because you are lying in hospital in a coma after a hoverboard accident on one of the moons of Garglepox IV.

>>Can you provide any evidence or rational argument that it is not possible

I already have provided a rational argument. Remember? No? I'll give it AGAIN. If the past is infinite and an infinite length of time cannot be crossed then the now that we exist in is impossible to reach. And that goes for any point in the past or future.  Now concentrate on that notion, pleeeeease. Why am I having to repeat myself for you people? It seems I pose the problem, you misunderstand on purpose, then I have to keep telling you it because misunderstanding is slightly better than admitting I am right and you are wrong.

>>Note that when Hawking and others refer to the universe being created from "nothing", they do not mean a complete absence of anything. They are referring to a pre-existing quantum vacuum with non-zero energy (because it is a quantum vacuum). And that previous state would have had to exist for some, possibly an infinite, time beforehand. 

I know. I'm the one telling you that. Remember? I just did it?  I said no one is tackling the idea that the universe came from nothing. Then you told me about Krauss and Hawking. I looked into Krauss and discovered you were wrong. Now you are admitting you were wrong about Hawking. Neither are dealing with the idea that something comes from nothing. They are dealing with the idea that something comes from something. You made a mistake, again.

 

God? oh for God's sake...who includes that on a science forum? Blaming God solves nothing because we then have to solve where God came from. That's why I do not include it?

On ‎29‎/‎03‎/‎2018 at 3:28 PM, Silvestru said:

Haha this broke my system. 

You have a real knack for science. 

I'm sure this conclusion was reached after much research. What about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_return

This theory has absolutely no observational evidence behind it but I am sure you wont mind. Just food for thought.

A knack for science? No it's called logic and common sense. Look up the words. A whole new world awaits you.

Eternal return? It does not matter what form the universe takes. It either existed for ever or came into existence at some point from nothing.(both illogical) Why are you posing notions that do not counter my argument in any way?

 

Seriously, people. THis is not hard. It is just hard to accept. And that's why you are messing me about.

On ‎30‎/‎03‎/‎2018 at 11:03 PM, tmx3 said:

Perhaps it always exists in the sense that, if we have to trace back to it, we can (e.g.: fossils of past remains). The evidence is there. Because the evidence is there, it does exist and in some ways can be reached to validate its existence again. 

Seems as if life is ultimately a state of being. We get to the “now,” because we exist in the now. When we, with our experiences and consciousness and so on, do not exist then someone else after us (and before us) does exist with their own experience and consciousness and state of being which makes the past the past, the present the present, and the future the future infinitely. This isn’t directed just to living animals—I’m referring to energy as well. We collectively and continuously cross an infinite space-time by existing in our own point in time: a generation of beings after another generation of beings (i.e., your grandparents took up space-time between 1920s and 2000s, your parents may have taken up space-time between 1970s to current date, and you may have taken up space-time between 1990s to current date and into the future, and so on—and the same is true in the opposite direction, your great grandparents and great-great grandparents and great-great-great grandparents and so on)! And, again, this idea is not restricted to just people or living beings, but to nonliving matter as well. 

As for crossing an infinite amount of time or space, we are lifeforms that are limited in time and space. Maybe some being composed of a different kind of existence can experience infinity in a way that we cannot, and therefore that kind of indefinitely-existing being/lifeform can potentially travel along this infinite space-time—which is something we cannot do. 

However, you can understand the notion of infinity. If you can understand the notion of infinity, you have already crossed space-time. 

*Mic drop*

Can you send a link to the philosopher’s writing? 

Sorry but what ARE you talking about? Nothing you say counters what I am saying. Please go back to square one and start again.

[dimreepr]

45 minutes ago, fudgetusk said:

I already have provided a rational argument. 

 

Yes, you did (funny enough I just answered this on another thread) but it wasn't/isn't logical.

[Strange]

On 18/07/2018 at 5:22 PM, fudgetusk said:

I already have provided a rational argument. Remember? No? I'll give it AGAIN. If the past is infinite and an infinite length of time cannot be crossed then the now that we exist in is impossible to reach.

That is not a very rational argument. There are an infinite number of integers before 0. And yet we are able to start counting from 0.

On 18/07/2018 at 5:22 PM, fudgetusk said:

Why am I having to repeat myself for you people?

Because your argument makes no sense?

On 18/07/2018 at 5:22 PM, fudgetusk said:

God? oh for God's sake...who includes that on a science forum?

When you say "there are only two options" I am duty bound to point out that there are others. Even if you don't like them. (And even if I don't believe them.)

 

But I don't know what point you are trying to make. You say it is impossible for the universe to be infinitely old. You say it cannot have come from nothing. And you say there are no other possibilities.(Sorry, if I have misunderstood/misremembered, the thread has been dead for a while.) So, by your "logic" the universe does not exist. Is that a good summary?