Infinity

[tommyboy605182]

just wondering if anybody could provide me with some reading material on the concept of infinity; evidence for and against an infinite regress?

i read that theories on loop quantum gravity show that there is evidence of a prior universe contracting before the big bang. however, the evidence also somehow suggests (the details on this are beyond me) that our universe is different from the last. is it possible to have an infinite regress if each universe is different from the last?

[Kurieuo]

just wondering if anybody could provide me with some reading material on the concept of infinity; evidence for and against an infinite regress?

i read that theories on loop quantum gravity show that there is evidence of a prior universe contracting before the big bang. however, the evidence also somehow suggests (the details on this are beyond me) that our universe is different from the last. is it possible to have an infinite regress if each universe is different from the last?

William Lane Craig is one of the foremost people who argue against an infinite regress being possible (see http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth11.html), and it seems quite clear to me that is is impossible. On the other hand, it isn't so clear to others.

As for evidence for prior universes, please provide such evidences. Just because a many universe theory is developed around how physics work in our universe, does not mean there is evidence for them. Furthermore, if each universe is different, then according to the infinite regress arguments I know, this does not make a difference. The universe would actually have to be infinitely static in order to avoid the infinite regress argument, but we know by experiencing cause and effect that the universe is not static.

[tommyboy605182]

just wondering if anybody could provide me with some reading material on the concept of infinity; evidence for and against an infinite regress?

i read that theories on loop quantum gravity show that there is evidence of a prior universe contracting before the big bang. however, the evidence also somehow suggests (the details on this are beyond me) that our universe is different from the last. is it possible to have an infinite regress if each universe is different from the last?

William Lane Craig is one of the foremost people who argue against an infinite regress being possible (see http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth11.html), and it seems quite clear to me that is is impossible. On the other hand, it isn't so clear to others.

As for evidence for prior universes, please provide such evidences. Just because a many universe theory is developed around how physics work in our universe, does not mean there is evidence for them. Furthermore, if each universe is different, then according to the infinite regress arguments I know, this does not make a difference. The universe would actually have to be infinitely static in order to avoid the infinite regress argument, but we know by experiencing cause and effect that the universe is not static.

Well, i don't completely understand such evidences, that's the thing. i know LQG supporters CLAIM to have discovered evidence of a prior contracting universe. i also learned recently that supporters of brane theory also believe that the big bang that started our universe was the result of colliding branes in spacetime, and that such collisions have been happening for eternity.

what i dont understand is how the world's leading physicists can throw around the word "eternity" without a care.
from what i gather from Craig's website, i came to this conclusion:
An absolutely infinite timeline must extend infinitely into the past as well as into the future,
Our timeline does not extend infinitely into the future, but rather ends here and now,
therefore, it could not have also extended infinitely into the past.

i would like to know if there is a problem with my logic, and if anybody is familiar with brane theory, HOW does it avoid the infinite regress argument?
if it DOESN'T avoid it and this is well-known, shouldn't this be a red flag to physicists?
if a beginning is still required, why don't any of the theorists SAY so?

[frankbaginski]

tommyboy605182,

Brane theory. That belongs in the sci-fi section of the book store.

But you wanted to know how it avoids a beginning. Imagine many universes that exist as plain space in another dimension. To visualize this suspend several sheets of paper next to and parallel with each other. Now imagine that each of these sheets has a slight wave motion to it. Now each sheet represents a universe in which a big bang occured from the last contact with an adjacent sheet. The next contact with an adjacent sheet collaspses the space and matter in each sheet and they start all over again.

This whole argument is to avoid the conclusion we had a start. Because if we had a start then it goes to a cause which leads to God. This whole thing is to avoid the possiblity of God. It is an exercise in math using very high numbers of dimensions. Anything you can imagine can be modeled given enough dimensions. It is like Chuck Missler says, if you torture the data enough it will admit to anything.

[frankbaginski]

tommyboy605182,

Oh, and by the way causation requires that the branes have a beginning so the argument just gets shifted.

[tommyboy605182]

tommyboy605182,

Oh, and by the way causation requires that the branes have a beginning so the argument just gets shifted.

i agree that the whole theory sounds very bizarre.

i also agree that there must eventually be a beginning, even if physicists manage to push it back billions or trillions of years.

it just confuses me how people seem comfortable that this theory answers the questions regarding what happened before the bang, when there is still a need for a first cause. i could be wrong on this, but isn't it a known fact that space is flat and actual infinity DOES NOT exist? if this is true, then the timeline must be finite, right? steven hawking himself readily admits that the timeline on which we reside MUST have had a beginning, which is clearly stated in his no-boundary work.

[frankbaginski]

tommyboy605182 ,

I am not familiar with Hawking's latest works. I just can't keep up on everything. That is good to hear that they are leaning to a start of time.

[madscientist]

An absolutely infinite timeline must extend infinitely into the past as well as into the future,
Our timeline does not extend infinitely into the future, but rather ends here and now,
therefore, it could not have also extended infinitely into the past.

What if a timeline let's say started at infinity past but ended here? And what if it started at a point and then went into infinity future?
When in terms of God, can we even refer to Him having a timeline? He goes from infinity past to infinity future - but does He really? For Him, there is no such thing as time. Now the next thing is, that how can we live eternally if we had a beginning? Or did our souls exist from infinity past only we were unaware of it? Dont think the Bible is gonna agree on that. If our souls - i.e. we had a beginning but will live eternally, does it contradict the theory? Or must there be no "time" in heaven/hell and no chronology? Is it just a cycle of feelings and no real time and events occuring?