To infinity and beyond.

[jeremyp]

Let's be clear here. Zero denotes physical non existence.

Let's run with this for now.

To then attach physical existence to them is absurd.

Yes, but fortunately, nobody is doing that.

A universe that begins and goes on for ever can be inferred from detecting the flatness of the universe but that, can only be extrapolated. Does that count as empirical fact? I'm not sure.

I said the evidence is good. I didn't say it is proven.

It seems to me that science is prepared to infer alternatives to that model e.g. the penrose model.

Explain the Penrose model in your own words.

Contingency is about what has to exist and what can be potential, then exist, then not exist.

Forget about that for now. Concentrate on fixing your basic misunderstanding of the nature of zero and infinity.

[Outrider]

Let's be clear here. Zero denotes physical non existence.

Within this context, ok.

To then attach physical existence to them is absurd.

No. Wherever they are they have physical existence, it's just that that's not here and now.

A universe that begins and goes on for ever can be inferred from detecting the flatness of the universe but that, can only be extrapolated.

Do you stand ten feet from your computer and lob commas randomly? Yes, but that extrapolation is from observations, i.e. it's empirical.

Does that count as empirical fact? I'm not sure.

Given our nature of experiencing time in a linear fashion, it's as empirical as we're going to get. It's certainly a lot more empirical than trying to infer information from ancient scripture.

It seems to me that science is prepared to infer alternatives to that model e.g. the penrose model.

It is. That's what's great about science, and also its limitation - any finding is always at least technically provisional.

Contingency is about what has to exist and what can be potential, then exist, then not exist.

That's your definition, at least some of the time, but you have a somewhat reduction view of this at times, where you can only see one isolatable object as being necessary, and not the notion of a cycle or process. And just making that a definition for contingency (and, by implication, necessity) doesn't preclude the possibility that everything is contingent and it's an infinite stretch back.

O.

[SteveH]

Infinity is a useful concept in maths, but there probably ain't no such thing in the real world. Even the universe isn't infinite - I believe that the preferred form of words is "finite but unbounded".

[jeremyp]

Infinity is a useful concept in maths, but there probably ain't no such thing in the real world. Even the universe isn't infinite - I believe that the preferred form of words is "finite but unbounded".

Sorry Steve, but you may be wrong. The Universe appears to be more or less flat. In fact, the expansion is accelerating, so it probably is infinite.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Sorry Steve, but you may be wrong. The Universe appears to be more or less flat. In fact, the expansion is accelerating, so it probably is infinite.

Isn't anything expanding finite?

What is it that, as you say "IS infinite" " not "Will be infinite " but "IS infinite"?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Explain the Penrose model in your own words.

OK If you insist on eliciting some amateur cosmology, I shall indulge.

Basically the universe expands to a point beyond heat death when all that’s left is isolated photons then, for some reason space and time cease to exist so this situation becomes indistinguishable from that of the Big Bang so we are back at the Big Bang.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That's your definition, at least some of the time, but you have a somewhat reduction view of this at times, where you can only see one isolatable object as being necessary, and not the notion of a cycle or process. And just making that a definition for contingency (and, by implication, necessity) doesn't preclude the possibility that everything is contingent and it's an infinite stretch back.

O.

I merely apply the principle of sufficient reason.So for your suggestion that there may be more than one necessary entity there is the question why more than one and not one?And the reason for that which we don’t have to know incidentally, is then the actual single necessary entity.

Similarly we can ask “Why a circular process and not a linear one”. Again, the answer that we don’t have to know, but expect there to be one then becomes the single necessary entity.

The trouble with just suspending the PSR is that it is an arbitrary decision taken merely because it suits imo.

There’s a further problem with a circular process is that ultimately it has everything responsible for creating itself and not creating itself simultaneously which makes the idea of a single necessary entity seem far, far, more reasonable.

[jeremyp]

Isn't anything expanding finite?

Not if our current theory of the Universe is correct.

What is it that, as you say "IS infinite" " not "Will be infinite " but "IS infinite"?

Space-time.

[jeremyp]

OK If you insist on eliciting some amateur cosmology, I shall indulge.

Basically the universe expands to a point beyond heat death when all that’s left is isolated photons then, for some reason space and time cease to exist so this situation becomes indistinguishable from that of the Big Bang so we are back at the Big Bang.

And how does that preclude infinities?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And how does that preclude infinities?

Because the question arises. Is this a loop, like a tape or film loop...If it is a loop can it then be considered an empirical infinity. Put another way. Space may be said to be flat but in a higher dimension it is curved. If it gives rise to a different universe the question is then raised “why could subsequent universes not be curved” or “closed and finite”?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not if our current theory of the Universe is correct.
Space-time.

But in Penrose model space and time disappears. So in what way Can space time be said to be infinite?

[jeremyp]

But in Penrose model space and time disappears. So in what way Can space time be said to be infinite?

You're making a big assumption. What evidence do you have that the Penrose model is correct?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You're making a big assumption. What evidence do you have that the Penrose model is correct?

My point is that there are several models of which Penrose is but one so your peculiar confidence in one model is unfounded.

Whereas we can have confidence in say, evolution we can have no similar confidence in any particular theory which throws up actual infinities.

[Outrider]

I merely apply the principle of sufficient reason.

Which you've repeatedly been shown not to understand.

So for your suggestion that there may be more than one necessary entity there is the question why more than one and not one?

That's a potentially valid question, but that the question exists doesn't mean that you can reject the potential and continue with your presumption that therefore there can be only one necessary entity.

And the reason for that which we don’t have to know incidentally, is then the actual single necessary entity.

You're presuming that there's an underlying 'something' - that's not been demonstrated. You've asked the question 'why multiple necessary things', presumed there's an answer and gone with that. We could equally ask the question 'why god and not nothing', and then just go with that.

Similarly we can ask “Why a circular process and not a linear one”. Again, the answer that we don’t have to know, but expect there to be one then becomes the single necessary entity.

If you go into the question with an expectation, you're likely to fall foul of confirmation bias at the very least.

The trouble with just suspending the PSR is that it is an arbitrary decision taken merely because it suits imo.

The trouble with applying the Principle of Sufficient Reason is that you have to know what that actually means, not what you want it to mean.

There’s a further problem with a circular process is that ultimately it has everything responsible for creating itself and not creating itself simultaneously which makes the idea of a single necessary entity seem far, far, more reasonable.

No, you're suffering from an anthropomorphic limitation - you see this is as a circular process, but it's not a process, it's a four-dimensional structure that exists as an entirety. We experience it as 'changing' because our subjective experience is limited from within the structure, restricted to movement through time within a narrow band, but independent of that subjective experience of time it isn't a process it's just a singular entity.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Which you've repeatedly been shown not to understand.

How can I put this diplomatically? If I was giving advice to a visitor expecting justification of this it would be along the lines of don’t hold your breath

That's a potentially valid question, but that the question exists doesn't mean that you can reject the potential and continue with your presumption that therefore there can be only one necessary entity.

You're presuming that there's an underlying 'something' - that's not been demonstrated. You've asked the question 'why multiple necessary things', presumed there's an answer and gone with that. We could equally ask the question 'why god and not nothing', and then just go with that.

If you go into the question with an expectation, you're likely to fall foul of confirmation bias at the very least.

The trouble with applying the Principle of Sufficient Reason is that you have to know what that actually means, not what you want it to mean.

No, you're suffering from an anthropomorphic limitation - you see this is as a circular process, but it's not a process, it's a four-dimensional structure that exists as an entirety. We experience it as 'changing' because our subjective experience is limited from within the structure, restricted to movement through time within a narrow band, but independent of that subjective experience of time it isn't a process it's just a singular entity.

O.
[/quote] Again we can ask why it is a four dimensional entity and not a three dimension or nine dimension. If it has structure, why that particular structure.

You contradict yourself by assuming one entity while castigating me for assuming one entity.

[Outrider]

How can I put this diplomatically? If I was giving advice to a visitor expecting justification of this it would be along the lines of don’t hold your breath

It's all here in black and white, just go look.

Again we can ask why it is a four dimensional entity and not a three dimension or nine dimension.  If it has structure, why that particular structure.

Again, we can, but it might be that there is no reason, that it simply is. Or it may be that there's an infinite chain of reasons going back forever. Or it might be that a big beardy sky-fairy made it so.

You contradict yourself by assuming one entity while castigating me for assuming one entity.

No, I'm not castigating your for assuming one entity, I'm castigating you for lacking the understanding that what we perceive from our limited viewpoint to be a cycle of entities is, in fact, one single entity in a four- (or more) dimensional arena.

It's a bit like a butterfly - there's an egg, or a larva, or a cocoon, or an imago, but they're all the same butterfly in four dimensional space. A cone is thinner at one end than the other, a universe is smaller in 3 dimensional space at one end than the other (if there is an 'other' end).

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It's all here in black and white, just go look.

Again, we can, but it might be that there is no reason, that it simply is. Or it may be that there's an infinite chain of reasons going back forever. Or it might be that a big beardy sky-fairy made it so.

No, I'm not castigating your for assuming one entity, I'm castigating you for lacking the understanding that what we perceive from our limited viewpoint to be a cycle of entities is, in fact, one single entity in a four- (or more) dimensional arena.

It's a bit like a butterfly - there's an egg, or a larva, or a cocoon, or an imago, but they're all the same butterfly in four dimensional space. A cone is thinner at one end than the other, a universe is smaller in 3 dimensional space at one end than the other (if there is an 'other' end).

O.

It isn’t so much that you are suspending the PSR it’s where you choose to do it.
 You are countering a reason with the reply there may be no reasons.
So that gives rise to three questions.
1 Why are you pulling this out at this point?
2 Isn’t what you mean that you don’t like the reason. So for what reason don’t you like it
3 Does this person actually want a reason.

I see no reason for suspending the expectation of a reason.

[jeremyp]

My point is that there are several models of which Penrose is but one so your peculiar confidence in one model is unfounded.

I'm quite happy that current evidence shows that space-time is apparently infinite. The Penrose model has no evidence to suggest it is true at this point.

Whereas we can have confidence in say, evolution we can have no similar confidence in any particular theory which throws up actual infinities.

You haven't explained why not. You try to hand wave away evidence based on your experience of a very small corner of the Universe.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm quite happy that current evidence shows that space-time is apparently infinite. The Penrose model has no evidence to suggest it is true at this point.
You haven't explained why not. You try to hand wave away evidence based on your experience of a very small corner of the Universe.

So you disagree with penrose that at some point space time ceases? The very thing you say is infinite. And that Penroses theory is as unlikely as any alternative to evolution.

What is it that makes you so confident that Penrose is wrong.
He has given reasons why something supposedly infinite disappears.

[jeremyp]

So you disagree with penrose that at some point space time ceases?

What's that got to do with anything? Do you think his model is generally accepted as what will happen in the cosmology community?

The very thing you say is infinite. And that Penroses theory is as unlikely as any alternative to evolution.

You've just latched on to a bit of speculation for no reason other than you think it supports your point of view. Where's your evidence?

For some reason it's important to you that infinities don't exist. But there's nothing in modern physics that says they can't. If you want to show they can't exist, show some evidence.

What is it that makes you so confident that Penrose is wrong.
He has given reasons why something supposedly infinite disappears.

You are the one who needs him to be right. Show the evidence.

[Outrider]

It isn’t so much that you are suspending the PSR it’s where you choose to do it.

It's not so much that I'm 'suspending the PSR' as you're deploying something and calling it the PSR, when that's not actually the case.

You are countering a reason with the reply there may be no reasons.

No, I'm countering your request for a reason with the notion that there may not be a reason. Exactly like you do when someone asks 'but why God?' or 'but what cause God?' or, 'but where does God come from?'

1 Why are you pulling this out at this point?

I've brought it up before, but we were both focused more on my point that you hadn't (and so far as I can tell still haven't) given a reason why reality could not be infinite and go back forever.

2 Isn’t what you mean that you don’t like the reason. So for what reason don’t you like it

No. I mean I don't think there's a reason to existence. I suspect at each stage there are immediate causes, but what makes most sense to me is that there is an infinite chain of immediate causes and reality just is.

3 Does this person actually want a reason.

I presume you mean me? Whether I want a reason or not isn't really that relevant to whether there is one or not, I don't feel like I'm missing out by not thinking there is one. If there is one I guess I'd like to know what it is

I see no reason for suspending the expectation of a reason.

I see no basis for presuming a reason in the first place - why do you have an expectation to be suspended?

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It's not so much that I'm 'suspending the PSR' as you're deploying something and calling it the PSR, when that's not actually the case.

No, I'm countering your request for a reason with the notion that there may not be a reason. Exactly like you do when someone asks 'but why God?' or 'but what cause God?' or, 'but where does God come from?'

I've brought it up before, but we were both focused more on my point that you hadn't (and so far as I can tell still haven't) given a reason why reality could not be infinite and go back forever.

No. I mean I don't think there's a reason to existence. I suspect at each stage there are immediate causes, but what makes most sense to me is that there is an infinite chain of immediate causes and reality just is.

I presume you mean me? Whether I want a reason or not isn't really that relevant to whether there is one or not, I don't feel like I'm missing out by not thinking there is one. If there is one I guess I'd like to know what it is

I see no basis for presuming a reason in the first place - why do you have an expectation to be suspended?

O.

You still need to state why a given situation could have no explanation in a way that is distinguishable from special pleading.

[jeremyp]

You still need to state why a given situation could have no explanation in a way that is distinguishable from special pleading.

You first. Explain why God needs no explanation.

[Outrider]

You still need to state why a given situation could have no explanation in a way that is distinguishable from special pleading.

I gave at least two: that it could be infinite in extent, and there was no initial event; or, that it's an entirely spontaneous natural occurrence without any underlying intelligent motivation - it simply is, there is no intellect to incept it with a reason.

Both of these have been offered before.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You first. Explain why God needs no explanation.

There is existence rather than non existence.
Nothing comes from nothing since nothing is non existence.
So something must always exist. And we call that God.
That then is the explanation of God.

A statement, the universe just is is not an explanation which is sufficient.