Philosophy Now Forum

Greylorn Ell wrote:

Greylorn Ell wrote: An infinite-mass would have absorbed all the energy in the universe. It all balances.
Greylorn

All the energy in the universe ?
All ?
That would presuppose that the amount of energy was limited but it isn´t, as far as I know.

You might find the mathematics of infinity interesting, as it differs from basic math. For example,
let's use "INF" as a symbol for infinity. Then,

INF + 1 = INF
INF + 1000000000 = INF
INF + INF = INF

likewise,

INF X INF = INF


Greylorn[/quote]

How to formulate then ?

An infinite-mass would have absorbed an infinite amount of energy ?

I introduced Descartes to see how science and philosophy can work together.

Not as a refutation of what physicists say about Einstein.

Argumentative jerk ????

If you grow weary because of my arguments then have a break and an ice-cream. Perhaps some other people feel like reacting.

No hard feelings.

I introduced Descartes to see how science and philosophy can work together.

But that's not what Descartes was doing, so I'm still perplexed...what's the relevance?

duszek wrote:

Greylorn Ell wrote:

Greylorn Ell wrote: An infinite-mass would have absorbed all the energy in the universe. It all balances.
Greylorn

All the energy in the universe ?
All ?
That would presuppose that the amount of energy was limited but it isn´t, as far as I know.

You might find the mathematics of infinity interesting, as it differs from basic math. For example,
let's use "INF" as a symbol for infinity. Then,

INF + 1 = INF
INF + 1000000000 = INF
INF + INF = INF

likewise,

INF X INF = INF


Greylorn

How to formulate then ?

An infinite-mass would have absorbed an infinite amount of energy ?[/quote]


It is these types of problems that have lead physicists/cosmologists to abandon the idea of a "primeval womb" as a beginning of the universe.

Ginkgo wrote:
How to formulate then ?

An infinite-mass would have absorbed an infinite amount of energy ?

It is these types of problems that have lead physicists/cosmologists to abandon the idea of a "primeval womb" as a beginning of the universe.

Ginkgo,
I'd never heard of the notion of a "primeval womb." No idea what you mean.

Formulation problems are up to the formulator to resolve. If the pinheaded cosmologists would abide by the same standards required of students solving real physics problems, they would give themselves an "F" every time they came up with infinity, or the even dumber "physical singularity" as a solution.

Their real problem is that they are trying to figure out the beginnings of the universe based upon a low-entropy start. That's the same mistake for which they chide religionists. They're coming at the beginning from the wrong end, an unnatural, zero or very low entropy beginning which is not energy's natural state.

Greylorn

Greylorn Ell wrote:
Ginkgo,
I'd never heard of the notion of a "primeval womb." No idea what you mean.

My bad. Initial singularity

Ginkgo wrote:
Science is very good at explaining what happened less than a trillionth of a second after the Big Bang.

Immanuel Can wrote: Please, do continue. How does "science" explain it?

wikipedia does it better than myself. If you google "Big Bang" you will get a detailed explanation of the theory.

wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model for the earliest known periods of the universe and its subsequent large-scale evolution.[1][2][3] It states that the universe was in a very high density state and then expanded.[4][5] If the known laws of physics are extrapolated beyond where they are valid there is a singularity. Modern measurements place this moment at approximately 13.8 billion years ago, which is thus considered the age of the universe.[6] After the initial expansion, the universe cooled sufficiently to allow the formation of subatomic particles, and later simple atoms. Giant clouds of these primordial elements later coalesced through gravity to form stars and galaxies. The Big Bang theory does not provide any explanation for the initial conditions of the universe; rather, it describes and explains the general evolution of the universe going forward from that point on.[4]

Ginkgo wrote: The assumption is...

Immanuel Can wrote: "Assumption"? I thought we were talking about science...so who's doing the assuming, and why are they assuming it?

An assumption in relation to science is really a hypothesis. A hypothesis is not a theory, because there is a lack of corroborating evidence. When it comes to cosmology there are many hypotheses that explain the origins of the universe. Sting theory, quantum loop gravity and apparently even something called "rainbow gravity". The Big big Bang is NOT just one of many such postulates, it is a theory. It is a theory because it can be tested and corroborated. This means the theory explains the observations. This in no way means the theory is correct. It is just the best explanation available at the moment.

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_mi ... background

Ginkgo wrote: the universe was in a highly organized state

Immanuel Can wrote: And this is descried...how? Because they need it to have been? I agree they need it, but how do they get it?

I guess this all depends on how you are prepared to interpret the laws of thermodynamics in relation to the early universe. There is no simple answer to your question without going into pages of debate.

Immanuel Can wrote: This all sounds like...well, not like faith, because faith requires some evidence...raw speculation, maybe? Forgive me, but I'm getting more skeptical by the minute.

In the end were are talking cosmology. People should not look at cosmology as being able to supply concrete answer in all areas. Some areas are better supported with evidence than other areas.

Immanuel Can wrote:
Okay, then: if there was organization, then what "organized" it? If you say "pre-existing conditions," then we're in dangers of resorting to a "turtles all the way down" kind of explanation, a infinite regress.

But we already know we can't have an actual infinite, so...?

"What organized it" is a meaningless question when it comes to science. Such a question presupposes a purpose. I am not saying there was no purpose, but such a questions in scientific terms is meaningless.

Infinities are of limited value when it comes to science. As I said before, few physicists believe there was such a thing as the initial singularity. They reject such a singularity on the basis that it cannot proved any reliable predictions, so a different theory is required.


http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initial_singularity

There is no simple answer to your question without going into pages of debate.

Perhaps. But it seems to me we could stop this sentence after five words, and lose no truth from it.

As your Wiki quote puts it,

"The Big Bang theory does not provide any explanation for the initial conditions of the universe; rather, it describes and explains the general evolution of the universe going forward from that point on."[

In other words, BB scientists have no explanation for what caused the BB. Thus, they are happy to claim they don't owe us any, even though they completely depend on a number of inexplicable things to do their work, such as a pre-existing "order," a pre-existing "cause," and a pre-existing set of Natural Laws to govern the universe and make science itself possible.

At bottom, then BB cosmology is not itself, a product of science but of guess-making or even, I would suggest, wishful thinking. It amounts to, the claim, "something happened, and somehow everything we need to do exist and do science just fell into place by sheer accident (we suppose): and here we accidentally end up on this world fine-tuned to our needs and to the needs of science -- lucky us."

Is that the best "science" can do by way of describing the "singularity," "first cause" or "thing before all the other stuff"? If it is, it really isn't much.

It seems we've ridden this horse as far as it goes, and it has died in the roadway.

Immanuel Can wrote:
At bottom, then BB cosmology is not itself, a product of science but of guess-making or even, I would suggest, wishful thinking. It amounts to, the claim, "something happened, and somehow everything we need to do exist and do science just fell into place by sheer accident (we suppose): and here we accidentally end up on this world fine-tuned to our needs and to the needs of science -- lucky us."

Is that the best "science" can do by way of describing the "singularity," "first cause" or "thing before all the other stuff"? If it is, it really isn't much.

It seems we've ridden this horse as far as it goes, and it has died in the roadway.

No, Big Bang cosmology is a lot more than this. BB is perfectly consistent with general relativity. Leaving aside quantum mechanics it is the best explanation for the way the universe works at the moment. As I said previously, B B is a scientific theory, not just idle speculation.

For example: http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_wave

So if you can't provide 100%of the answers, none of the existing answers are any good. Typical denier mantra.

thedoc wrote:So if you can't provide 100%of the answers, none of the existing answers are any good. Typical denier mantra.

Doc, the whole idea of science is that it doesn't provide 100% of the answers.

Gravitational waves did it? That's the best explanation?

Wow. Now I'm even less impressed.

The horse isn't just dead...it's starting to attract flies and stink.

Immanuel Can wrote:Gravitational waves did it? That's the best explanation?

Wow. Now I'm even less impressed.

The horse isn't just dead...it's starting to attract flies and stink.

You think 'The big skyfather did it.' is a better one?

Design doesn't happen without intelligence. The universe everywhere shows design. Therefore, some intelligent Cause is the best answer we've got, both theologically and scientifically.

We can argue about the nature of that Cause, but it's pretty darn hard to argue against its necessity.