Arguments Against the Five Ways

[FightingFat]

I thought modern physics says that the universe is expanding at an exponential rate so that now there is not enough mass, (and so, gravity), in the galaxies to pull the universe back to a point again to complete a loop. I think that modern physics favoured view is that the universe must continue expanding through space forever.
Eventually there is the ‘cold death’, or something, of the universe when all the stars burn out and there is no more energy produced in the universe. So how would a universe move from a stable dead condition back to some sort of space-time quantum rebirth, where does the energy for that come from?

Sorry You, I’m all questions and few answers on this thread!

Check this out though, it may help you en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loop_quantum_cosmology

 

[You]

Sorry You, I’m all questions and few answers on this thread!

Check this out though, it may help you en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loop_quantum_cosmology

Why are you all questions, have you tried reading that stuff too?
Maybe I am too conservative in my thinking, I tend to think of a rock remaining a rock for 14 billion years without dissolving into quantum nothing for no reason irregardless even of all the spare and huge energy available in this universe. I suppose I don’t understand the trigger for a rock to dissolve into quantum nothing, having not observed it happen before.

 

[FightingFat]

Why are you all questions, have you tried reading that stuff too?
Maybe I am too conservative in my thinking, I tend to think of a rock remaining a rock for 14 billion years without dissolving into quantum nothing for no reason irregardless even of all the spare and huge energy available in this universe. I suppose I don’t understand the trigger for a rock to dissolve into quantum nothing, having not observed it happen before.

I’m having a discussion with a friend who is a clever bloke, lectures in a university over here on mechatronics (whatever that is- we have lots of made up subjects over here) but is very anti-Catholic. He sees Catholicism as backwards and denying scientific evidence. JDaniel has really helped me demonstrate to him that Catholics understand these issues and consider them, and that they are not at odds with our beliefs. It’s extremely valuable and already my friend has stopped making pejorative remarks about Catholics and Thomism, and has started asking questions!

 

[Touchstone]

I thought modern physics says that the universe is expanding at an exponential rate so that now there is not enough mass, (and so, gravity), in the galaxies to pull the universe back to a point again to complete a loop. I think that modern physics favoured view is that the universe must continue expanding through space forever.
Eventually there is the ‘cold death’, or something, of the universe when all the stars burn out and there is no more energy produced in the universe. So how would a universe move from a stable dead condition back to some sort of space-time quantum rebirth, where does the energy for that come from?

Per contemporary physics, no “new” or invested energy is needed, or even allowed for the model to work. Our universe is a “zero energy universe”, as best we can tell (and we have far better instruments and resources available to us now than Aquinas had) - all positive energy in our universe is matched by an equivalent measure of negative energy.

See Alan Guth’s Inflationary Universe for a deep, quality treatment on this from a physics perspective.

In any case, though, none of that helps or defeats the “eternal loop” question, any more than the Big Bang does. Any finite cycle for our universe can just be posited as one link in an infinite, eternal chain of such units, or as some physicists conjecture (metaphysicaly), an eternally cascading fractal “tree” of such universes, not just a single “branch”.

-TS

 

[You]

Per contemporary physics, no “new” or invested energy is needed, or even allowed for the model to work. Our universe is a “zero energy universe”, as best we can tell (and we have far better instruments and resources available to us now than Aquinas had) - all positive energy in our universe is matched by an equivalent measure of negative energy.

See Alan Guth’s Inflationary Universe for a deep, quality treatment on this from a physics perspective.

In any case, though, none of that helps or defeats the “eternal loop” question, any more than the Big Bang does. Any finite cycle for our universe can just be posited as one link in an infinite, eternal chain of such units, or as some physicists conjecture (metaphysicaly), an eternally cascading fractal “tree” of such universes, not just a single “branch”.

-TS

So a dead, cold rock floating through space for long enough returns how to a quantum state?

 

[You]

I’m having a discussion with a friend who is a clever bloke, lectures in a university over here on mechatronics (whatever that is- we have lots of made up subjects over here) but is very anti-Catholic. He sees Catholicism as backwards and denying scientific evidence. JDaniel has really helped me demonstrate to him that Catholics understand these issues and consider them, and that they are not at odds with our beliefs. It’s extremely valuable and already my friend has stopped making pejorative remarks about Catholics and Thomism, and has started asking questions!

Cool, maybe I’ll learn something too…

 

[Touchstone]

So a dead, cold rock floating through space for long enough returns how to a quantum state?

It doesn’t need to – although it would on a collapsing model (“The Big Crunch”). On an inflationary model, and particularly here I’m referring to what is known as the “chaotic inflationary model”, our universe is spawned by a quantum fluctuation in a “parent” universe.

This universe is, in the context of that parent universe, just a random bit of quantum flux. In turn, “babyverses”, other and new universes spawned within ours are catalyzed in the same way – it’s just quantum fluctuation to us. Those daughter universes then go on to spawn their own daughter universes, and so on, in an eternal cascade. Each daughter universe can be “infinitely big” in it own self-referential terms, and not even as big as nanoscaled from our perspective.

Chaotic inflationary theory doesn’t require that all universes are inflationary. On that model, universe parameters are the product of random (name removed by moderator)uts, and thus there will some spawned universes that are inflationary, and some that aren’t depending on the relative strength of the basic forces for that universe. Some collapse, some expand forever.

-TS

 

[JDaniel]

I have read your response a few times now. I’m still none the wiser. Are you saying that universals replace specific instances of a thing? Or that abstractions are in some way “realer”?

No; but I am saying that abstractions help us to know things. All animals are speciated. We capture the determinants of their speciation as we look closer at them. For example, just north of Jackson Hole, WY, is a large, fenced in field that is the end of the migration loop of a number of herbivores: Buffalo, Deer, Elk, Mountain Goats, etc. They are all herbivores. Yet, when watching them, one immediately notices that they segregate from the other forms of herbivores and congregate with their own species. We humans come to know them, after viewing them in quantities, by their qualities (determinants) as separate species. I can think of numerous reasons why such an endeavor might be useful to us.

The group of animals has the same reality as does each individual animal. But, one kind (species) of animal might taste better than another. Or, one kind (species) might be unlawful to kill. Or, one kind of animal may be having survival problems that we may be able to help them with.

One other thing: if we were unable to reify, to speciate, we would not know such things as numbers. Imagine what life would be like without all of our inventions!

Abstracting is essential to us.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Re: Infinity & beyond

What would you say to the idea that the demarkation for ‘actual’ and ‘potential’ infinity is yet another remnant of Aristotle? A hundred years afterwards Archimedes pretty much set up the death of the idea that ‘actual infinity’ does not have actual existence, when he used the idea of actual infinty to find the areas and volumes of curved shapes. Were these ideas overlooked in favour of the Aristotlean view and thus not really dealt with rigorously, until Newton and Leibniz leading Leibniz to exclaim:

“I am so in favour of the actual infinite that instead of admitting that Nature abhors it, as is commonly said, I hold that Nature makes frequent use of it everywhere, in order to show more effectively the perfections of its Author.”

The more you know…

Fighting:

Here again, the word actual actually means real, that is, can be related to real objects. Therefore, real, with regard to the meaning of “infinity,” means potential infinity. Unless it can be delimited, that is determined to be this number rather than that, as all other species of number can be and are, it must be understood to mean, potential. (I wish there was a better word.)

Number is form; it is species. Only real things that are countable, as well as possessing all their other attributes, are actually actual. The number of stars in the universe is countable (of course, it would not be easy work!). So, that number, whatever it is, represents how many real stars there are one by one… That number, whatever it is, is not a separate entity, or object, or thing that is knowable in the same way that stars are knowable. We know stars because they are that which confronts our senses, or, more precisely, they are that which strikes us (our senses) in that same way a fist might. (Which is the derivation of the word, “object,” from the Latin, objectum.)

Now, form, unlike matter, exists - but only in the potentialities of matter. It is, for all intents and purposes, privative. In other words, it exists as privation, an exclusion of other determinants that determine other deer to their species. That is why it is called species. The attributes of a white tailed deer are what separates (speciates) white tailed deer from all other deer and all other herbivores. But, those attributes don’t exist on their own; they only exist within the matter of the deer. And, sufficiently so, so that the deer seem to ‘know’ it. All actual numbers are speciated by the final number of their set, or sequence. One hundred trillion, five hundred billion, two hundred forty million, six hundred thousand, four hundred and thirty-three is a final number in a set or sequence. Though it may not be said of any real things in particular, it may be said of real things. Perhaps the number of atoms constituting a car. As such, it can also represent other numerous things: such as molecules, stars, moons, etc., so it is real only as a determinant, or, delimiter. And, since the same number can be used to refer to various things, it is its own species. Deer is said of all deer, not merely one of them.

But, there does not exist a determinate or, delimited, number that is represented by the word ‘infinity’. The word cannot describe how many units are in it. It is, by its very definition, unbounded, undelimited, unlimited, undetermined, un-ending, un-stoppable, and so on. There is no final number that anyone can point to as the number infinity. If there were, we should be able to know whether it was an odd number or an even number. It is, to us, a vague, but, large group of whatever that is supposed to be represented by it. Unlike the large number above, which has determination, a determining end number, ‘infinity’ has none. As such, it is, in its mode of actuality, a potential infinity. A potential infinity can exist, because at any point, it can be halted and measured by ‘one.’ An actual infinity cannot be halted or measured by ‘one,’ as it numerically exists well beyond any possible point at which it may be halted - without end. There cannot exist an actual linear infinity. If it could, it would continuously fill all of space and all of beyond space so that nothing else could co-exist with it. It would crowd-out all finite beings.

Aristotle was a pretty smart guy! I am amazed that so many others are unable to correctly comprehend the concept. Mathematics has no matter; it consists of form only.

God bless,
jd

 

[You]

It doesn’t need to – although it would on a collapsing model (“The Big Crunch”). On an inflationary model, and particularly here I’m referring to what is known as the “chaotic inflationary model”, our universe is spawned by a quantum fluctuation in a “parent” universe.

This universe is, in the context of that parent universe, just a random bit of quantum flux. In turn, “babyverses”, other and new universes spawned within ours are catalyzed in the same way – it’s just quantum fluctuation to us. Those daughter universes then go on to spawn their own daughter universes, and so on, in an eternal cascade. Each daughter universe can be “infinitely big” in it own self-referential terms, and not even as big as nanoscaled from our perspective.

Chaotic inflationary theory doesn’t require that all universes are inflationary. On that model, universe parameters are the product of random (name removed by moderator)uts, and thus there will some spawned universes that are inflationary, and some that aren’t depending on the relative strength of the basic forces for that universe. Some collapse, some expand forever.

-TS

um… are these parallel universes

 

[JDaniel]

It doesn’t need to – although it would on a collapsing model (“The Big Crunch”). On an inflationary model, and particularly here I’m referring to what is known as the “chaotic inflationary model”, our universe is spawned by a quantum fluctuation in a “parent” universe.

This universe is, in the context of that parent universe, just a random bit of quantum flux. In turn, “babyverses”, other and new universes spawned within ours are catalyzed in the same way – it’s just quantum fluctuation to us. Those daughter universes then go on to spawn their own daughter universes, and so on, in an eternal cascade. Each daughter universe can be “infinitely big” in it own self-referential terms, and not even as big as nanoscaled from our perspective.

Chaotic inflationary theory doesn’t require that all universes are inflationary. On that model, universe parameters are the product of random (name removed by moderator)uts, and thus there will some spawned universes that are inflationary, and some that aren’t depending on the relative strength of the basic forces for that universe. Some collapse, some expand forever.

-TS

Yes. Ever more new conjectures out there, like the many before them and the many that are contemporaneous with them, and, more than likely, the many that will follow them. Such are the choices we are provided to replace Creation and God. Actually, though, I don’t have that huge a problem with such conjectures. After all, God is infinite and eternal: why would he have started Creating only 17 billion years ago? (Our time.)

God bless,
jd

 

[Touchstone]

um… are these parallel universes

Not sure how to answer that. In the case of parent or daughter universes, they are “other” universes, but not “parallel” universes. But a “sibling” universe, a universe spawned by by the same parent, I guess you could call that a “parallel” universe with some useful meaning.

But I think you are thinking of “parallel universes” in the quantum decoherence sense, the constant forking of “variant” universes (this one, and every one) for every decoherence event, every point where something irreversible happens.

That’s not this concept, but a whole different “dimension” to the question. When physicists really want turn up the gnarly, they draw out the picture with an infinite cascade of “canonical” universes, which is pretty heady stuff in its own right, and then multiply that out with each of those infinitely cascading universes splitting into innumerable logical paths, one universe for each lemma for every irreversible even in each universe.

It’s a lot to wrap one’s head around.

But “paralllel universes” is a different concept than what I’ve been talking about above.

-TS

 

[You]

So how does the cold, dead rock floating through space start to become a universe?

 

[FightingFat]

Abstracting is essential to us.

Agreed!

RE: Infinity & beyond

Aristotle was a pretty smart guy! I am amazed that so many others are unable to correctly comprehend the concept. Mathematics has no matter; it consists of form only

Its not that the concept was poorly understood, its more that the concept was incomplete. If we consider the actual sub division of a curve (a real existant curve) into a sum of smaller and smaller straight lines, the division is, as you say, potentially infinite but, as with Xeno’s paradox, we never reach the limit. The limit is in potentia and the sum of divisions is always merely an estimation of the real curve’s length BUT if we accept that the limit exists, as Newton, Leibniz and Cantor (and some would say Achimedes) did, then it is possible to find the ACTUAL length of the curve!

So, although Aristotle was a very clever man he missed a trick! Cantor called the type of set of infinite divisions used in our example, a transfinite set, so as not to confuse it with the idea of Absolute infinity (which he considered to be GOD) and Aristotle’s potential infinty.

 

[FightingFat]

There is a blurry line here between physics and metaphysics. I still maintain that to talk metaphysics it is essential to understand the limits of our knowledge about the physics of our existence.

As highlighted with the above discussion about infinity, it can be seen that an Aristotlean underpinning for metaphysics is not the best, as the oringinal postulates about the actual physics is far from soiphisticated enough.

 

[GloriousOrder]

The “infinite loop” theory is really quite silly. When you see a Ferris wheel spinning, do you assume it has always been spinning? Upon observing a gerbil cycle in motion, does your mind assume its natural state is motion? You do not think either of these things, because the former is moved by electric power or wind, and the latter is moved by the gerbil. If these standards can be applied to the Ferris invention and the gerbil cage, surely they can be applied to everything else in the Universe, because all matter retains similar qualities… and the Universe consists of matter, at least on the surface.

If a rock can be destroyed and made infinitely “nothing” (presumably by anti-matter), then all rocks can be destroyed and made infinitely “nothing”. Rocks share rockiness, after all. Rocks, then, if they can be destroyed, are not the necessary foundation of matter. If you can find any piece of matter at all that cannot be obliterated, then it is plausible that some matter may be essential, infinite, and eternal. Since we have found no such matter, we can assume the state of Matter itself is not infinite. After this, it follows that there must be a greater reality which cannot be destroyed by something greater than itself.

This process of elimination goes on and on. It is simple, innocent, and (a follower of Wittgenstein might say) naïve. I don’t know about all you complex, brainy scientific types, but I’d prefer to innocently observe reality and draw my conclusions from it. All this talk of physics and ‘possible’ causality in abstraction seems to be a great construct entirely for the purpose of pushing simple logic out of the picture.