A universe with no beginning or end

Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around the concept of an infinite universe and the implications of infinite regress, particularly in relation to the Big Bang and eternal inflation models. While the Big Bang suggests a beginning to our universe, it raises questions about the pre-existing space-time that may have existed infinitely. The paradox of infinite time and space leads to contradictions, as it challenges the notion of causality and tangible existence. Participants argue about the validity of infinite causality chains and the philosophical implications of existence, drawing on historical thinkers like Kant and Engels. Ultimately, the conversation highlights the complexities and unresolved issues surrounding the nature of time, space, and existence.
  • #31
Originally posted by wuliheron
I'd never join a club that would have me as a member.

Groucho Marx

Existence may be the ultimate mystery, but I certainly can't prove it! I doubt my own doubt, and never settle for certainty. Not even the certainty of my doubt. :0)

Bull! You wouldn't have stated that you have this doubt, unless you are certain of having this doubt. It is not impossible to be uncertain of everything; but one who is uncertain of everything cannot be certain that he/she is so, and thus cannot state it.
 
Space news on Phys.org
  • #32
Originally posted by Eh
The problem is, the backdrop of space-time must be expanding and if finite, it to would have a beginning. An infinite expanding space might not necessarily have a beginning. But the self reproducing universe and eternal inflation models aren't really multiverse theories. They just concern a universe that continuously produce regions of inflation.

"An infinite expanding space"? This is not possible. I've already shown (in other thread) that infinite (physical) things cannot get any bigger. Expansion = "getting bigger", and thus an infinite spacetime cannot expand.
 
  • #33
Originally posted by Mentat
"An infinite expanding space"? This is not possible. I've already shown (in other thread) that infinite (physical) things cannot get any bigger. Expansion = "getting bigger", and thus an infinite spacetime cannot expand.

This is clearly nonsense.
 
  • #34
No, because an expanding universe does not get bigger. Expansion seems to be misleading in this case.
 
  • #35
Originally posted by heusdens
This is clearly nonsense.

It is clearly not as clear as you think, otherwise I wouldn't have convinced a good few members in the old PFs of my view. Please, enlighten me.
 
  • #36
Originally posted by wuliheron
I'd never join a club that would have me as a member.

Groucho Marx

Existence may be the ultimate mystery, but I certainly can't prove it! I doubt my own doubt, and never settle for certainty. Not even the certainty of my doubt. :0)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Bull! You wouldn't have stated that you have this doubt, unless you are certain of having this doubt. It is not impossible to be uncertain of everything; but one who is uncertain of everything cannot be certain that he/she is so, and thus cannot state it.

In a rational universe filled with rational human beings it isn't possible, but I've never claimed to be rational much less that the universe is rational. Go ahead, prove me wrong. LOLOLOLOLOL
 
  • #37
Originally posted by wuliheron
In a rational universe filled with rational human beings it isn't possible, but I've never claimed to be rational much less that the universe is rational. Go ahead, prove me wrong. LOLOLOLOLOL

What's the point, you aren't rational. The claim that you (and the universe) are irrational creates paradox, and is thus not worth discussing (that's right, there is not point in discussing paradox in a thread about a rational universe. *sticks out tongue*).
 
  • #38
Originally posted by Eh
No, because an expanding universe does not get bigger. Expansion seems to be misleading in this case.

Expansion is getting bigger, isn't it? If not, explain what it is.
 
  • #39
What's the point, you aren't rational. The claim that you (and the universe) are irrational creates paradox, and is thus not worth discussing (that's right, there is not point in discussing paradox in a thread about a rational universe. *sticks out tongue*).

Yuk! If I had something that ugly in my mouth I'd stick it out too!

Paradox, as many here have been quick to point out, is not well defined. As I have repeatedly pointed out in innumerable ways, this is precisely what makes it valuable. Logic and mathematics themselves are based on the concept of the absurd and to deny this is, in its own rite, absurd.
 
  • #40
Originally posted by wuliheron
Yuk! If I had something that ugly in my mouth I'd stick it out too!

Paradox, as many here have been quick to point out, is not well defined. As I have repeatedly pointed out in innumerable ways, this is precisely what makes it valuable. Logic and mathematics themselves are based on the concept of the absurd and to deny this is, in its own rite, absurd.

Is this something that you believe for a certainty, Wuliheron?

Besides, a discussion of paradox could easily bring an end to the discussion that is the theme of this thread, but that doesn't mean that it answers it (no matter if you think it does, it doesn't). It just makes the subject irrationality, and this could leave Eh - and the rest of us - without a constructive argument (which we could have had).
 
  • #41
Originally posted by Mentat
It is clearly not as clear as you think, otherwise I wouldn't have convinced a good few members in the old PFs of my view. Please, enlighten me.

Well let us try to make the situation more clear.
Suppose we have a grid, representing 3D space. It has lines on it, defining the current metrics. Now the anlogy with space expansion is that the size of the grid gets bigger. This is also the case when the grid is infinite in size.

Your argument supposedly comes from the fact that Infinity + Any number is still Infinity, and even Infinity * Any number is still Infinity, so in a mathematical sense you cannot say that the size of the space is getting bigger. You CAN however claim that the size of the metrics gets bigger, and that is what is being meant when we say that space expands.
 
  • #42
Originally posted by heusdens
Can you point me to any arguments or proof that this is not a reasonable assumption (except from plain ignorance)?

Don't you think that science has shown us this to be the case?
Science hasn't shown us anything, other than that our perceptions of mind are orderly and predictable. There's not one scientific-fact which favours materialism over idealism.
 
  • #43
Is this something that you believe for a certainty, Wuliheron?

Besides, a discussion of paradox could easily bring an end to the discussion that is the theme of this thread, but that doesn't mean that it answers it (no matter if you think it does, it doesn't). It just makes the subject irrationality, and this could leave Eh - and the rest of us - without a constructive argument (which we could have had).

Paradox is not the end of discussion, au contrair, the beginning of discussion. No paradox, nothing to discuss. Likewise, paradox is not the end of rationality, but its origin as I already stated.

Do you honestly believe westerners are the only people to ever contemplate infinity? How absurd. Infinity is just another aspect of paradox. Acknowledging this simple fact of life brings rigor and a grounding effect to your debate, which is infinitely complex.
 
  • #44
Originally posted by Lifegazer
Science hasn't shown us anything, other than that our perceptions of mind are orderly and predictable.

Perceptions of mind? That what we perceive of is the 'outer reality' (which is not just out of us, but also in us).
Can the mind perceive of itself?

There's not one scientific-fact which favours materialism over idealism.

Most of the scientific facts in physics, chemics and biology do favour materialism. Materialism has been proven to be a more workable assumption then Idealism.
 
  • #45
Most of the scientific facts in physics, chemics and biology do favour materialism. Materialism has been proven to be a more workable assumption then Idealism.

I agree a hundred percent with this statement. Like Aristotlelian logic, materialism has proven to be the more brute force approach that quickly goes to the heart of the matter. That's not to say idealism does not have its value though, only that like a lot of liberal ideas it often not very expedient. Fortunately, the two are not mutually exclusive any more than the concept of paradox is. :0)
 
  • #46


Greetings !
Originally posted by heusdens
This is like opening up a box of tricks, that can fill in any gap in our reasoning. I think you have the wrong conception of material existence anyway. What you call the "paradox of existence" is not a box of tricks you can use at will to fill gaps of understanding.
Why not ?
Or would you rather think that the paradox
centers "around" a single thing. ( Maybe
a super-string in 26 dimensions ? )
You are trying to limmit paradox, by definition
it can have no limmit.
Originally posted by heusdens
For sure we can know if the elementary particles are elementary. At least when we discover that they can be divided up into more elementary forms of matter, a counterfact has been proven.
And we don't ? Can you ever be certain of anything
except existence ?
Originally posted by heusdens
Can you prove that?
Nope.

Live long and prosper.
 
  • #47
Originally posted by Mentat
Bull! You wouldn't have stated that you have this doubt, unless you are certain of having this doubt. It is not impossible to be uncertain of everything; but one who is uncertain of everything cannot be certain that he/she is so, and thus cannot state it.
That's why we have a wonderful thing called
estimate of probability(through science =
all knowledge + all experience).
(Not that you can ever calculate and be certain of
the exact probability - but as long as science
appears to "work" your estimates based on it could
work too.)

Live long and prosper.
 
  • #48
Originally posted by Lifegazer
Science hasn't shown us anything, other than that our perceptions of mind are orderly and predictable. There's not one scientific-fact which favours materialism over idealism.]
Of course there is LG - science can predict.

"Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication." Leonardo Da Vinci

Live long and prosper.
 
  • #49
You are trying to limmit paradox, by definition
it can have no limmit.

The sentiment is good, but the literal statement is not. Paradox does have a definition and, thus, it is not a meaningless word or a purely sentimental one. Logic alone cannot describe paradox, that is why it is useful.
 
  • #50
Originally posted by drag
Of course there is LG - science can predict.
The prediction of orderly-perceptions does not prove that what we 'see' is real unto itself. It just proves that what we see is orderly and predictable. Your point is irrelevant.
 
  • #51
Originally posted by Lifegazer
The prediction of orderly-perceptions does not prove that what we 'see' is real unto itself. It just proves that what we see is orderly and predictable. Your point is irrelevant.

A statement like 'there is not one jot of proof for material existence' which is stated as if that would have some absolute truth, is rather relative and subjective vision on material reality, which only portrays the will and intent of a subjective mind, which intends at leaving us with a 'reality gap' to be fitted in with what he sees as 'Divine intervention' 'Divine source' or 'Divine origin' of and to existence.

But most people know better then that.

They will see that the materialist claim, though it cannot be established with 100 % certainty, is true, and which is backed up with lots of scientific evidence in all fields of science, while the opposite position (the 'divine' nature of reality) has indeed not one bit of evidence, but is entirely based on the subjective mind, and lacks objective proof, and proof based on empirical knowledge.
 
Last edited:
  • #52
Originally posted by heusdens
Well let us try to make the situation more clear.
Suppose we have a grid, representing 3D space. It has lines on it, defining the current metrics. Now the anlogy with space expansion is that the size of the grid gets bigger. This is also the case when the grid is infinite in size.

Your argument supposedly comes from the fact that Infinity + Any number is still Infinity, and even Infinity * Any number is still Infinity, so in a mathematical sense you cannot say that the size of the space is getting bigger. You CAN however claim that the size of the metrics gets bigger, and that is what is being meant when we say that space expands.

This can't be right. Think physically. If a dimension of space is infinite, then it goes on forever. How much bigger than "forever" can you get? (this is a rhetorical question, btw).
 
  • #53
Originally posted by Mentat
This can't be right. Think physically. If a dimension of space is infinite, then it goes on forever. How much bigger than "forever" can you get? (this is a rhetorical question, btw).

Something of infinite size that gets bigger still remains infinite size. But this does not contradict the idea that it DOES get bigger.
Even while it is infinite, it is made up of parts, and all it's parts grow. I would certainly call that getting bigger (at least you get that perception when measuring around within a finite portion of the space).

Capito?
 
  • #54
Originally posted by Mentat
Expansion is getting bigger, isn't it? If not, explain what it is.

Expansion is a local event. Asymptotically flat space between the galaxies expands. That is, the distance between point A and B expands, but when this happens in a universe of infinite volume the size remains constant. Expansion does not necessarily mean the universe is growing like in the balloon analogy.
 
  • #55
Originally posted by Lifegazer
Your error here is that you, like heusdens, are assuming that existence is fundamentally material.

I did assume that in the second point (on GR), but not in the first one.

From this, you deduce that a static material-existence (with static forces too) would be unable to change itself. Hence you conclude that such a state would have to remain eternal - thus negating the onset of time. And since time has happened and is still happening, you conclude that there could not have been such an original-state as unchanging-Existence.
Your reasoning is correct - except that your premise needs to be proven to validate that conclusion.

Let the set of all processes be represented by the function of time P(t). P(t) is static iff, for all n in Z+, d(n)P/dt(n)=0. If all the time derivatives are zero, then it is logically impossible for P to evolve in time, unless you assume something else. That is what you do, despite denying it here...

However; I took the non-assumed route towards making my conclusion of reason.

Hardly! You have to assume that there is some supernatural being to reach in from outside the universe and set all these things in motion. Once you open the floodgates for assuming figments of the imagination like that, you can not get anywhere, because anything goes.

And if you subtract your asserted-premise from a re-reading of my post, then you'll see that there's nothing wrong with my reasoning.

There is plenty wrong with it. Aside from the needless assumption above, the argument is not even deductively valid. Look at it again:

"Firstly; the beginning of time = the beginning of change.

Hence, you are in error by assuming that the beginning of time = the beginning of existence. Existence doesn't necessarily imply 'change'. And there is no logical-reason to label the idea of unchanging-Existence as an absurdity."

You say "hence" as though the second part follows from the first, when it obviously does not. This is a simple non-sequitir whose acceptance demands that we assume the existence of one of an infinite number of possible gods.

Hence, you are in error by assuming that the beginning of time = the beginning of existence. Existence doesn't necessarily imply 'change'. And there is no logical-reason to label the idea of unchanging-Existence as an absurdity.

What makes more sense:

1. To assume that the statements of GR and QFT (which make a strong inductive argument) are on the right track?

or...

2. To open the door for all manner of deities for which there is no evidence?

If you want to argue that The Mind existed in a changeless state, then I can just as well argue that the Easter Bunny always existed, hiding eggs for The Mind's children. Hey, you know what? That just might rescue your idea, because the Easter Bunny moves very fast, I hear. That's it! We have found the original source of motion for everything!
 
  • #56
Originally posted by Lifegazer
The prediction of orderly-perceptions does not prove that what we 'see' is real unto itself. It just proves that what we see is orderly and predictable. Your point is irrelevant.
Stop ! If you'll "listen" to yourself for just
a moment you'll see that you didn't say
CHOOSE - you said FAVOR. The ability of
science to predict clearly makes it favorable.
In this light my point is relevant.

Live long and prosper.
 
  • #57
Originally posted by heusdens
Something of infinite size that gets bigger still remains infinite size. But this does not contradict the idea that it DOES get bigger.
Even while it is infinite, it is made up of parts, and all it's parts grow. I would certainly call that getting bigger (at least you get that perception when measuring around within a finite portion of the space).

How much bigger is 1 than 1? If I were to add something to 1 and still get 1, I would have to be adding zero, because otherwise the result would be bigger than 1. This means that I can't add anything to 1, without getting a bigger number. There is no "bigger number" than infinity. You cannot add something to infinity at all, it makes no sense (because of previous reasoning on the number 1). It is as though all numbers are as 0 compared to infinity.

So, if I add zero (which = any finite number) to infinity, I have exactly the same amount of space left, and thus no expansion has taken place (obviously - since I'm adding zero).
 
  • #58
Originally posted by Tom
1. To assume that the statements of GR and QFT (which make a strong inductive argument) are on the right track?
How DO the statements of GR, QFT or "you name it"
actually EXPLAIN the Universe ?
(The easter bunny is just as good...:wink:)

" The story so far:
In the beginning the Universe was created.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been
widely regarded as a bad move.
Many races believe that it was created by some sort
of God, though the Jatravartid people of Viltvodle VI
believe that the entire Universe was in fact sneezed
out of the nose of a being called the Great Green
Arkleseizure.
The Jatravartids, who live in perpetual fear of the
time they call The Coming of The Great White
Handkerchief, are small blue creatures with more than
fifty arms each, who are therefore unique in being the
only race in history to have invented the aerosol
deodorant before the wheel.
However, the Great Green Arkleseizure Theory is not
widely accepted outside Viltvodle VI and so, the
Universe being the puzzling place it is, other
explanations are constantly being sought. "
Douglas Adams

Live long and prosper.
 
  • #59
Originally posted by drag
How DO the statements of GR, QFT or "you name it"
actually EXPLAIN the Universe ?


They don't explain the universe, they describe it. The description is such that there is no such thing as motionlessness.
 
  • #60
Originally posted by Mentat
How much bigger is 1 than 1? If I were to add something to 1 and still get 1, I would have to be adding zero, because otherwise the result would be bigger than 1. This means that I can't add anything to 1, without getting a bigger number. There is no "bigger number" than infinity. You cannot add something to infinity at all, it makes no sense (because of previous reasoning on the number 1). It is as though all numbers are as 0 compared to infinity.

So, if I add zero (which = any finite number) to infinity, I have exactly the same amount of space left, and thus no expansion has taken place (obviously - since I'm adding zero).

Well I already accepted that point of view, but it is besides the point since infinity can't be measured anyway.

The only thing we CAN and DO measure however is the size of the metrics of the grid which is of finite propertions, which gives us the impression it is getting bigger.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

B Big Bang and Infinite Universe
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
1K
I Bubble universes and physical constants
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
I Did cosmic inflation happen everywhere in the Universe?
  • · Replies 80 ·
3
Replies
80
Views
11K
I Cosmological principle about space and time
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
I How we are in a matter dominated universe (without antimatter annihilation)
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
I Infinite space in a finite bubble, in a Tegmark Level 2 multiverse?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
B Bubble universes and infinite in extent
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
5K
B Estimates — True Size of the Universe?
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
4K
I Could it be that the Big Bang had no cause?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
A Model of the Universe/Multiverse
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K