Does Ending Proove Origin?

[my_serpentin]

Is the occurance of termination, evidence of a certain conception?

The purpose of my pondering is to arrive at a conclusion about the history of the universe(s).

 

Galaxies are not only fleeing the big bang, but doing so with acceleration. I suppose this is means it is all destined to end in some sense. Entropy increase until all imbalances are leveled to a static state.

 

In my reasoning this end would mean a certain beginning, which doesn't make any sense. Something must have caused the beginning. Something must have begun that which began the beginning. There must be a continuum. An eternal history of that which spurred the next.

 

If the universe is at all (which it evidently is) it MUST be CYCLIC. The infinite potential theories for what the Cycle specifically is, is irrelevant for this purpose. Can we establish in least that a cycle of some sort exists? I cannot see it otherwise.

 

My confusion is here---- i believe that being cyclic must mean there is no end ever. I'm not trying to be optimistic, I simply cant see it any other logical way. The cycle must continue IN SOME SENSE. The particular way the continuum is facilitated, is irrelevant. In naked essence can we concede there IS a way for it to continue? How could a cycle of eternal heritage come to any ultimate death? How could it simply fall into an unreedemable conclusion?

 

Finally my concern is, i cannot entirely grasp WHY there cant be an end. Not for absolute certain. It just feels completely wrong. Having no justification nearly equates to blind belief, which i am uncomfortable to harbor.

 

Can you provide input to resolve what i am at loss of?

[my_serpentin]

subtracting elaborations of my opening post, i would like to simplify and clarify my intentions, in hopes that my objective is more quickly satisfied:

 

Evidence and logic shows that the universe is moving toward disorder and staticity i.e. death. I reason that the universe must be cyclic. This seems to lead to that ultimate death/ end of the cycle is impossible. However i do not know how to solidly defend that final claim. I wish not to habor blind faith, thus i seek your aid and intuition absolve my absense of understanding.

 

 

Please note, i realize there are theories stating that perhaps the conception of the universe requires no cause, therefore cycling is not inevitable. These theories make no sense to me.

Please provide all answers in the context of the assumption of the cycle. My question is about the termination, not the inception of the cycle.

 

assuming the cycle IS in place, can it logically arrive at an absolute end?

[cosine]

If the universe is at all (which it evidently is) it MUST be CYCLIC. The infinite potential theories for what the Cycle specifically is' date=' is irrelevant for this purpose. Can we establish in least that a cycle of some sort exists? I cannot see it otherwise.

 

My confusion is here---- i believe that being cyclic must mean there is no end ever. I'm not trying to be optimistic, I simply cant see it any other logical way. The cycle must continue IN SOME SENSE. ...

 

Finally my concern is, i cannot entirely grasp WHY there cant be an end. Not for absolute certain. It just feels completely wrong. Having no justification nearly equates to blind belief, which i am uncomfortable to harbor.

 

Can you provide input to resolve what i am at loss of?[/quote']

 

Well first I am not sure why you insist the life of the universe must be cyclic.

But, for the sake of arguement, assume that it MUST be cyclic. If this is so, then you are wondering how there could be an end to the universe? If you hold a belief that the universe's life is cyclic (which I don't know why exactly) you can still consistently believe there is an end to the universe by imagining the life cycle be like that of any living organism on earth (the butterfly in particular comes to mind, though substitute your favorite animal).

 

I'm not sure if what I said addresses your concern at all.

[my_serpentin]

i guess it may be necisary to define why the universe must be cyclic (actually i already did) before addressing my true concern.

 

If it is not cyclic that means at some point there was a result, without a cause. Something coming from nothing. Zero becoming one. SOMETHING caused the big bang. Something created the thing (i'm not saying god, god is illogical. i just mean we dont know precisely what it is) which created the universe, and something created the thing which created the thing which began our universe.

 

Is there any other logical perspective? Honestly i'm not closed minded, but as it is I cant see how it is possible for the universe to not be cyclic.

 

I dont think a living organism is a good comparison. Life is a subjective phenomen of the universe. The universe itself is a different issue. I did make it clear i was talking about ABSOLUTE death. Death of an organism is subjective. The matter of that organism is absorbed by other creatures. Even if life goes extinct, its matter and energy is transported somewhere, form changes, it is not an absolute death

[MattC]

You don't think it's logical that something might spontaneously exist, without cause, and yet you think it is logical that something has always existed and always will exist (and then on about your cyclic stuff)? You say something can't come from nothing - what created the everything that you claim has always existed, then? Nothing?

Personally, I don't have any trouble accepting that both are possibilities. I'd need some hard science to convince me otherwise.

[bascule]

Is the occurance of termination' date=' evidence of a certain conception?

The purpose of my pondering is to arrive at a conclusion about the history of the universe(s).

 

Galaxies are not only fleeing the big bang, but doing so with acceleration. I suppose this is means it is all destined to end in some sense. Entropy increase until all imbalances are leveled to a static state.[/quote']

 

Yep, the universe seems to be heading for a state where extropic creations would be unable to sustain themselves at such a high state of entropy, and anywhere a low state of entropy remains is already so far away and going so fast you could never catch up to it. It's as if all life in the universe is essentially doomed to die.

 

In my reasoning this end would mean a certain beginning, which doesn't make any sense. Something must have caused the beginning. Something must have begun that which began the beginning.

 

Well, some propose an infinite regression as an alternative. I don't buy it.

 

There must be a continuum. An eternal history of that which spurred the next.

 

If the universe is at all (which it evidently is) it MUST be CYCLIC. The infinite potential theories for what the Cycle specifically is, is irrelevant for this purpose. Can we establish in least that a cycle of some sort exists? I cannot see it otherwise.

 

I believe we live in a cyclical (or oscillating) universe as well.

 

My confusion is here---- i believe that being cyclic must mean there is no end ever. I'm not trying to be optimistic, I simply cant see it any other logical way. The cycle must continue IN SOME SENSE. The particular way the continuum is facilitated, is irrelevant. In naked essence can we concede there IS a way for it to continue? How could a cycle of eternal heritage come to any ultimate death? How could it simply fall into an unreedemable conclusion?

 

Finally my concern is, i cannot entirely grasp WHY there cant be an end. Not for absolute certain. It just feels completely wrong. Having no justification nearly equates to blind belief, which i am uncomfortable to harbor.

 

Can you provide input to resolve what i am at loss of?

 

I think it dies when intelligence, which is about to expand rapidly from earth and begin filling the universe, wills it to, upon realizing that the alternative is entropy death in which no further existence as a complex entity is possible.

[aguy2]

 

Evidence and logic shows that the universe is moving toward disorder and staticity i.e. death. I reason that the universe must be cyclic. This seems to lead to that ultimate death/ end of the cycle is impossible. However i do not know how to solidly defend that final claim. I wish not to habor blind faith' date=' thus i seek your aid and intuition absolve my absense of understanding.

 

[/quote']

 

I have been developing a cosmological model that does not ignore or discount the current data that indicates that the observable universe's expansion/growth is accelerating, but nonetheless postulates a cyclic or oscilating condition. Although the model has answers to a lot of thorny questions, unfortunately it also postulates that we are 3.5 billion years into the collapsing phase of the cycle/oscilation.

 

aguy2

[my_serpentin]

Matt--- basically yes. Which part of it do you think doesnt make sense and why? No i didn't say the thing existed forever. I said existence existed forever. Something created the thing which created us. I'm sorry i even called it a thing, which is probably why you misunderstand me. The thing may be nothing more than the force of the universe exploding then imploding again and this ocillation. Although evidence does not support that particular mechanism of oscillation. I think the particular mechanism is irrelevant because theres no way we could proove it anyway. I think all we can do is use logic to determine the likelyhood of SOME mechanism simply existing. Again by mechanism i certainly dont mean a machine or anything. That is as silly as the idea of God. I simply mean some force, pattern, set of inevitable reactions.

As i see it logic is the only way we can determine the answer to questions such as this which are outside our ability to apply the scientific method to. Much as the theory of natural selection. It is completely untestable, it is nothing more than common sense, which evidence seems to suppport.

 

the only thing i assume is that there is no beginning, thus no end. I only assume this because it is what makes most sense to me. Feel free to tell me why i'm wrong. Thats why i started the thread, because I dont trust my logic unchecked, and i want your help.

 

BASCULE-- so are you saying that intelligence makes some alteration or causes some event which spawns the next cycle. Thats a very cool idea, i dont know if it would work like that. Intelligence unlike other life does not always seek to preserve itself. Infact often people possessing high intelligence question the purpose of their existence to the point on determining to terminate it. These may be examples of lower manifestation of high intelligence. Perhaps the most highly intelligent do indefinately seek to secure their future in their own favor. However i cannot say that the arrisal of such intelligence would be inevitable within a universe, so i think there ought to be another way of the contiuation of cycles. Something simple and unintelligent, incapable of making the decision whether or not to continue. Continuation being the only option.

[MattC]

Well I'm hardly infallible, and you shouldn't take my questions and criticisms to be disagreement, because it's not (I happen to also think there was no beginning or end - I just don't think I can prove it).

 

My problem with that approach is this: If there has always been something, then nothing came before that something, and therefor it exists spontaneously, without being made. If that can happen, why can't it happen that something exists spontaneously, and yet has a beginning? That is, we are stretching things when we assume some mechanism that we cannot observe. We have never observed something appearing without cause, true. And so it's crazy to think the universe just appeared. However, if everything was not formed by *something,* does that make sense? Every process we know of is a result of something else - a series in a chain of events. Are we to assume that existance is the exception? that it came not as a result of something else, but just ... because?

It's like questioning god with a believer.

They say, if not God, who made everything, and who made it the way it is?

We might ask (if we're cynics), what made God? It is just as crazy to assume that there is some all powerful being or force that always exists and always existed, that created everything we are aware of, as it is to assume that something just came from nothing. Actually, the two theories are equally uncertain, in that both require something just being there - either a god, or the universe. Why not just admit that we don't know and maybe can't know?

 

You cannot prove by logic that the universe has always existed. We have never existed outside of time, and we don't understand how time works exactly (though we have many theories which can be very useful on certain scales and in certain applications. As we have never observed how an existance come into being, or observed one *always* being in existance.

[my_serpentin]

well there wouldnt have been any 'before' to speak of if it has always been. Yes it is boggling to attemp to comprehend why there is something instead of nothing. I tend to think it makes somewhat more sense then there being a definate beginning.

 

Maybe the you are correct, the answer is outside our capabilities of reasoning. I guess i simply mean, if there is an answer to be found, logic is our only tool for producing it, since there is no way for us to perform any sort of experiment or the likes.

[sunspot]

One possible way to answer the question is to play the universe expansion backwards. I am not suggesting a cycling universe or not, but only to help make sure assumptions can work in a reversible way. If one can not pack the popcorn back in the kernal, maybe there are problems. For example, if the universe is assumed to just appear as an energy field, if one plays it backwards, one needs to be able to make the universe disappear from an energy field and reform empty space.

[my_serpentin]

sounds like a useful pondering, but i'm not entirely sure what you mean

[amrit]

universe is eternal, universe is a-temporal, is a system in a permanent dynamic equilibrium, universe in a continous motion, time belongs to the mind

see more: http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=4902

 

amrit