I don't worry about it. You don't have to know everything that exists inside a cluttered room to know that you're in the room. You know you exist, you don't need to know all that's in the past and all that's in the future.

nothing could "always be", especially something as complex as a universe. all eggs come from chickens

>>13
That's not true. Energy is technically infinite, and cannot be created or destroyed.

>>13

Why is that?

>>14

Energy can be converted into matter, and vice-versa. By your logic, nothing can be destroyed.

>>34
And by his logic, he's right.
Nothing can truly be destroyed, only transferred.

I like the idea of a universe that is infinite in time, and you're right most people's problem with it is a misunderstanding of infinity.

>>13
None of us know anything about universe creation or how complexity(in the sense of the universe) and length in time are related.

I also like the idea that there isn't a basic form of matter. So for every bit of matter there would always be some smaller bits that it's made of, forever.

"It's turtles all the way down!"

The problem with an infinite regress is that
It does not answer anything, it merely pushes the question up or back one more level.

In the turtle example alluded to above, there was a (possibly apocryphal) exchange between Bertrand Russell and an old woman attending one of his lectures. "The universe is supported on the back of a giant turtle, Mr. Russell!" the old lad is said to have claimed. "And, what, madame, is the giant turtle supported by?" he responded. "Another turtle, Mr. Russell!" Amused by this response, Russell continued inquiring as to the support of each successive turtle, until the old lady blurted out in exasperation, "Mr. Russell, it's turtles, all the way down!"

While the encounter may be nothing more than an urban legend, the point it makes is sound: An infinite regress is an evasion, not a solution.

With regard to the claim that the universe is eternally existent, this position is contradicted by the 'Big Bang.' 14.3 to 17 billion years ago, the cosmos and all the energy and matter it would ever contain began to exist. Things that are infinite don't have beginnings, and things that have beginnings are not infinite.

I hear your mental gears whirring away, and you may claim that the universe became non-existent for a time, before blooming anew -- like the wakening Shiva -- into existence, an endless cycle of existence and non-existence outside of time and beyond human logic.

Cool story, bro, but it's just an 'infinite regress.' Hinduism masquerading as physics.

>>66
I think you're proposing that time has a beginning; the big bang. But the big bang theory is based on the idea that time will keep on going and the universe will keep on expanding further. So, again, we find ourselves staring into infinite time.
To reverse this logic, it would be easy to imagine the universe imploding and time ending. The issue lies with how that effects the time before the implosion. Even if the universe ended today (or started 13.7 billion years ago) time would expand outwards infinitely in the other direction.

So we're back to the turtles. You've found the top and claimed to prove then that there must be a bottom.

Not to mention the idea that time could begin or end is impossible to comprehend. If time is an objective measure how could it begin or end? If someone was waiting for the big bang to happen, for example, how long would they have to wait? Infinitely? No time at all? Either way, you're looking at the same problem again.

Hey, newfag here
How can anyone still believe in determinism, considering the dualistic nature of electrones?
And I'm not even trolling.

>>106

The way you express yourself lends me to think that you're not the most knowledgeable person in these matters, but I think what you're getting at is that the success of quantum mechanics as a scientific theory would tend to suggest that there is an element of randomness to future events. This may be true, but future events are still determined by past events, and quantum theory describes the constrainment of future possibilities according to precise equations.

Even so, as a scientific theory, quantum mechanics doesn't describe the true nature of the universe; it serves as a functional tool to predict the probabilities of future events occurring. Sort of. The point is, it doesn't contradict determinism. It could be the case that there is an unseen hand determining what does happen, out of a list of things that might happen. We just don't know what that hand is.

>>107
Sorry about my expressing myself, came here from 4chan, that sorta confused me...

Anyway, my understanding is, that (immensely simplyfied), the quantum theory adds the effect of randomness to the universe (since it works flawlessly, I believe we have no reason to presume it is wrong), thus making the past events not determine the future, rather just influence.
Whereas determinism believes that everything has already been decided bilions of years ago, in the big bang perhaps. Thus allowing no factor of randomness to occur.
Correct me if I am wrong in my definitions, but in this way, the two theories do contradict themselves...

>>113

From a certain point of view, yes. Given humanity's current understanding of physics, there appears to be no 'clockwork' universe; future events are not precisely determined by past events, but they do constrain the possible configurations of future events.

The reason why this isn't the nail in the coffin for determinism is that the empirical process can't ever tell us how the universe is, only how it appears to be, and how it appears is limited by our ability to understand it.

It could be that the universe is both predetermined and postdetermined; that "present" is determined by fixed events in the future and past, not merely the past alone. Or it could be that 'random' events are just determined by something we can't yet detect or understand; maybe other universes, or something like that.

Really, time is so poorly understood, by philosophy and science, it's not too late to close the lid on anything.

>>114
Alright, so you may actually help me understand a thought many philosophers say and I don't think I understand wholly.
It is said, that the equations and definitions we have made in the past, are only relative definitions. -I ask, why? Our universe certainly has many physical rules, and if our theories have not been, why do we have a reason to expect that they are not 100% accurate? And I am talking especially about quantum physics, because it is mostly abstract, only expressed as something pseudo-definite.

Based basically all my knowledge, I will try to present my belief to you:
The matter we know was formed by an immense accident, a collision of two (or more) objects with multiple dimensions (up to 11)
To the question of what comes after death, noting the quantum theories, and algebra (I think that merely the existence of complex numbers is a valid reason to believe in existence of multiple universes and dimensions)
there is a question (philisophical) whether or not we are just information, if yes, nothing happens really, if not, if there is any chance of survival, our consciousness is transferred to a parallel universe, where we still live (we don't notice anything, but everyone sees us die)
So basically, if there is any probability of an event happening, it happens, the only question is, if we percieve it happening, or not.

Now, of course I'm not saying I'm correct, everyone else is wrong, but is there any major hole in my theory, if yes, where?

Also, I hope I have expressed myself understandably, you see, english is not my native language, in fact, it's quite different. So please don't dismiss me just for a bad formulation.

And btw, I looked through the answers above me, and it seems to me that some people here believe that time is absolute. It is not, it's quite relative and affected by almost everything... Correct me if I'm wrong but time actually stops in a black hole...

>>116

Erm, no. Pick up a science book. Most of what you think is fantasy and speculation. The universe was not created in a 'collision of two (or more) objects with multiple dimensions'. Don't fill up what's behind the cloak of ignorance with the blessed fruits of your imagination.

>>119
Alright, any arguments/theory of yours to actually present? I presented mine as a possibility, and you dismiss it as nonsense, presenting no real arguments.

And then you try to tell me about ignorance? Are you sure?

>>116
Just as an FYI, try not to mention you’re from 4chan. It won’t get you banned on this board but it will on others. Also, I've studied philosophy not phyiscs. I’m going off my meager insights into that territory, so feel free to enlighten me.

>It is said, that the equations and definitions we have made in the past, are only relative definitions. -I ask, why? Our universe certainly has many physical rules, and if our theories have not been, why do we have a reason to expect that they are not 100% accurate? And I am talking especially about quantum physics, because it is mostly abstract, only expressed as something pseudo-definite.

I think you’re asking why a definition or proof would become false over time. I’m not aware of a logical proof that would become false with time. Where did you come across this idea? How does it affect your argument?

>The matter we know was formed by an immense accident, a collision of two (or more) objects with multiple dimensions (up to 11)

Again, not sure where you got this. Why are the dimensions important? And secondly, wouldn’t the collision of two objects imply that there was matter to begin with?

>To the question of what comes after death, noting the quantum theories, and algebra (I think that merely the existence of complex numbers is a valid reason to believe in existence of multiple universes and dimensions)

I’m not sure why you mention the question of what comes after death. Also, you need to offer more on what complex numbers are and why their existence proves multiple universes and multiple dimensions.

>there is a question (philisophical) whether or not we are just information, if yes, nothing happens really, if not, if there is any chance of survival, our consciousness is transferred to a parallel universe, where we still live (we don't notice anything, but everyone sees us die)
So basically, if there is any probability of an event happening, it happens, the only question is, if we percieve it happening, or not.
‘We’ being minds?

I would argue against this – information, for one, is not physical whereas our minds interact with the physical world. The non-physical cannot interact with the physical by definition.

>Now, of course I'm not saying I'm correct, everyone else is wrong, but is there any major hole in my theory, if yes, where?

As I understand your argument(s):

1a. The truth value of logical statements does not decay

1b. Complex numbers exist
2b.Therefore multiple universes exist

1c. Minds are bundles of information
2c. Minds exist in another universe
3c. This bundle of information is connected to one physical human body
4c. Therefore, if the physical body dies the information remains in the other universe

1a. If an event is possible it will occur in one of the multiple universes

I argue that:
2b is an not a valid inference (It doesn’t follow with nessecity if 1b is true)

1c is an unsupported premise
2c is an unsupported premise
3c is logically impossible
4c is an not a valid inference (It doesn’t follow with nessecity if 1, 2, and 3 are true) For example, the information could dissipate, be transported, convert to another form, ect)

1d is an unsupported conclusion

>And btw, I looked through the answers above me, and it seems to me that some people here believe that time is absolute. It is not, it's quite relative and affected by almost everything... Correct me if I'm wrong but time actually stops in a black hole...

According to contemporary physicists time and space are one in the same. They can be bent, destroyed, start, and stop. And yes, they can both be effected by gravity. I will not (and nor will any other philosopher) accept a physics argument because it’s common belief in their community. Time space seems nonsensical to me – like quantum physics, it may be convenient in the way that it helps us calculate certain formulae, but it isn’t useful in describing the way we understand the natural world. I may be ignorant on this point, admittedly - but I’ve never been satisfied with the physics answer to the problem which is why I started this thread. Perhaps someone can elaborate? How can time be relative when it seems objective to the universe? How did the big bang ever come to occur, for example, in a timeless universe? Or, poster, how did your multiple objects collide to create all matter if time/space didn't exist to allow them acceleration, speed, dimension, ect.?

>>123

"How can time be relative when it seems objective to the universe?"

Well, there's that experiment where they sent a jet plane around the world and its clock recorded a slightly slower time because of the plane's travel velocity.

Time slows down as you approach the speed of light. This is one of the major implications of Einstein's theory of relativity. It doesn't mean that time necessarily did not exist at the start of the universe, or that events can occur without time. It merely means that "how fast time moves" depends on the relative velocity of the observer. This is all theoretically derived by physicists, such as Einstein's 1905 theory, and there is experimental proof as well.

YouTube can explain it better than I can.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYWM2oZgi4E&feature=related

Space and time really are the same thing. After all, what is space other than the time it takes for something to move through it?

The Big Bang theory is an astonishingly successful theory, but it's a very simple one; that the universe started dense, and has been becoming less so. There is an awful lot not understood about near-present events, let alone the far past and far future. Regarding the 'cause' of the universe, modern scientific consensus can only offer speculation, not fact. It can't be said for certain whether or not there is any meaning to saying 'before' the universe, and with it the idea of a causation of the universe. In fact, time itself is very poorly understood.

One thing I do know about time is that it is easier and more productive to contemplate near-present time than far-past time, since we know so little about the far-past.

I think that the issue of how and why the universe came to exist (or if it even has any meaning to ask the question) is a topic given too much importance. I can't imagine that understanding the answers would make much practical difference to how I live my life, but I know that if I wanted to find those answers, I'd have to probably devote my entire life to finding out.

Last stop everyone, were here. at the end of all that was

I think that the confusion over the word “infinite” comes from a poor understanding of the concept as well as general misuse of language. In other words, I believe that infinity is not a real thing, i.e. it cannot be found in nature; it only exists as a purely mental abstract concept.

I can break this problem down into two parts: first where we got the concept from, and second what it actually means regarding certain situations.

If you follow Derrida’s (or whoever it was) logic of how words get their meaning then you’ll see that infinity is basically nonsensical. Words get their meaning from what they are not. A dog is a dog because it is not a cat, a tree, a house etc. The same goes with infinity, the meaning of infinity is defined by what it is not: finiteness. I have good reason to believe that humans first came up with the concept of finiteness since we usually get our concepts first from nature itself. Nothing in nature can be said to be demonstratively infinite, especially not the first time it was used. So imagine, for example, that there was a farmer who was philosophically inclined. He sees that he only has a limited amount of sheep. After some thinking about what it means for something to be limited, he comes to the conclusion that finiteness must have an opposite: infinity. However, here lies the problem. Nature does not have opposites, opposites are merely mental abstractions we evolved (or learned?) to make sense of the world around us. They are very useful in that sense but they also lead to numerous logical contradictions and paradoxes.

If you follow this logic then everything preceding the big bang, as well as everything outside of space cannot be called infinite. Finiteness gets its meaning from within the framework of time and space. Only objects which take place in time and space (such as sheep) can be said to be finite. Things only can be finite, you cannot have that nothingness is finite, it’s an internal contradiction. Therefore, infinity must also get its meaning from within this same framework. However, since the general understanding in science seems to be that space and time started with the big bang (I think), you cannot say that anything outside of that is infinite. The word infinity simply does not apply here. There is no infinite regress and the universe definitely had a beginning. Beginnings imply time and space and, considering that time and space started with the big bang, the beginning of the universe must have been the big bang.

So either we cannot fully comprehend infinity (who of you claims they can?), or infinity exists solely as a concept but not in nature.

>>160

Except; no. Pi is a transcendental number; it coughs up seemingly random digits for infinity. This is an established mathematical fact. Given that this is a definition of infinity that rests upon real, well understood concepts, I don't see how a person could insist that infinitely, either conceptually or actually, does not exist.

The argument on infinity reminds me of Gene Ray's (of Time Cube fame) argument about infinity. He said because you couldn't see it didn't exist. To me Infinity exists as valid as any concept. From a mathematical standpoint there are several kinds of infinity: counting without end from 0 is not the same kind of infinity that describes the number of points between 0 and 1.

I don't believe the existence of time implies a start and a finish it merely comments on change. I consider time a parameter that corresponds to the change in entropy of some system. It appears to be a parameter that in simple physics models is magically shared among all systems. I would recommend a basic calculus class where you learn that an integral yields a constant factor that must be addressed by additional boundary conditions. Simply, put the claim of an interval such as time only implies that start and stop of that interval.

Perhaps the beginning of the universe was the big bang? But what was before that? Do we have an ultimate start?

I don't believe, so because we have no reason to value one point of time as more important then the other.

What is to me more interesting is what if before the big bang everything was still? We would be unable to parametrize time. It would simply not pass because every frame would be the same as the previous! Put another way in complete stasis we would have no time. What if physics says that before the big bang there would have been no motion? Perhaps then we would have the start of the universe?

Even more troubling, what if we had complete stasis but there might be a system where the entropy plateaus (image 2nd order? swinging pendulum). So that before we have time and at that one instances we didn't? How could we say "before that"? It really boggles your sense of causation.

>>160
The idea of the universe being finite, and essentially having come from nothing (because if god made it who made god and on and on. This line of questioning would have to stop somewhere if existence were to be finite) is not any easier to accept.

>>161
Two little nitpicks from a mathematician. We don't know if Pi is a "normal" number, meaning that it's digits act randomly (the probability two strings of equal length are equal). The second is that I'm not quite sure what you mean by "real, well understood concepts". I'm not sure it's proper to call the axioms of set theory, which give rise to mathematical understanding of infinity (and just about everything else), real.

rude

>>258

The axioms exist as concepts that people understand. They are therefore real. Pi is an irrational number that is a part of the set of real numbers. Pi cannot be expressed by a finite number of numbers; it's transcendental. It can only be approximated by describing it with a finite number of numbers. Any number of numbers that is not finite is infinite, therefore pi can only be correctly expressed with an infinite number of numbers.

Is that not mathematically correct? I think it is.

>>263
>Pi cannot be expressed by a finite number of numbers; it's transcendental
This isn't exactly what transcendental means; transcendental means that it can't be expressed as a zero of a polynomial with rational coefficients. I think the issue is in your use of the word "number". Remember that pi itself is just one number. If you mean digits, then you are just talking about irrationals (and repeating fractions, but base-changes can get around those). Of course, for your argument irrationals are enough, which is why I called my objections nitpicks.

>>264

Yeah digits. I meant number of digits.

i'm a math babby so maybe what i'm asking is retarded but: what _part_ of infinite existence does a finite amount, like the earth, constitute? you can't subdivide infinity, right? like some other guy said, the problem we have with thinking the universe may be finite is that we can't comprehend there not being time or causality or motion. if we know for a fact that time is relative, which is mind-boggling enough as it is, what's really stopping it from not being altogether?

>>287

The 'size' of the universe is defined by the distance to the theoretical threshold to any point where the rate of expansion of spacetime is equal to the speed of light. This is a finite distance, determined by the speed of light and the fixed age of the universe. Due to the relative speed of recession of particles at the edge of the universe, there are an inifinitely large number of objects crammed into the 'barrier' at the edge of the universe, but the relative effect of the mass and energy emissions tends to zero.

Because of this, the amount of 'stuff' in the universe is infinite, but the effect it has on the Earth is finite; the Earth represents an infinitesimally small, but non-zero proportion of all mass in the universe.

They've designed an experiment to test whether the universe is a simulation. So I think this may help to illuminate the answer to this question.

>>366

I've heard about that. It'll amount to nothing. Sounds like bullshit doesn't it?

>>366
No, they designed an experiment to see if the universe was discrete. Just because computers use discrete math doesn't mean that anything discrete is a simulation, or even that all simulations are discrete.

>>8

"Reason is always a region cut out of the irrational — not sheltered from the irrational at all, but a region traversed by the irrational and defined only by a certain type of relation between irrational factors."


>>66
Regression always comes down to one thing, induction. We are here. Something happened and we are here.
We have no reason to believe that whatever happened will or will not happen again because it exists beyond an infinite source. We will never know an ultimate how or why because INFINITE REGRESSION is INFINITE. Example, if the Big Bang created the universe, what created the Big Bang? Everything comes from nothing? If this is the science you have to offer, I gotta say it is not particularly tight.

We know we are, and that's what we get. Operate within your parameters. Play your position.


>>160

I would argue with just as much logic that "two" is not a real thing. Everything existing is distinct so there can never be two of anything as they could not occupy the same place in space time. So now that we've decided that all numbers are abstract concepts, infinity, the abstract concept/number rides again! Hooray!

>>289
i meant in terms of infinite regress

if there is in an unlimited number of universes, you can't measure "one" universe. at least i don't see how you could. to be able to measure one part of something would require that the whole of that something be finite, no? that was probably better to use as an example than the earth, which can obviously be measured relative to the universe it is in