If Science Did Prove Intelligent Design, Would It Make Any Difference?

[EndTimes]

Creation … ex nihilo . out of nothing …

Singularity? resembles ex nihilo

Of course… endless ‘theories’ prop up from out of nothing - so as to dispute that …

 

[Barnesy]

Barnesy:

No. An absence of physical reality. No matter exists so nothing changes so there is no time either. The universe exists but there is nothing in it

What you are saying is meaningless and not scientific at all

The universe is space-time and energy. That is physical reality scientifically speaking. When that no longer exist, there is no meaningful scientific sense in which you can speak of our universe.

Its not our universe any more. There is no time as theres nothing to change. There is no matter as its all dissipated. It doesnt have a size as theres nothing to measure. Its a transition between this one and the next one and penrose calls them aeons. Its not infinite in time because time stops when one aeon ends and starts when the next one begins so theres no infinite regress and it doesnt need an external cause. If you want you can bring in something else as well but its not required.

 

[ConsistantlyBaffled]

If we could prove we had an intelligent designer, I would just hope it wouldn’t turn out like that episode of Rick and Morty: an apathetic creator who made us to provide it with some kind of service, and the knowledge that we could be erased if we under preformed.

 

[IWantGod]

Its not our universe any more. There is no time as theres nothing to change. There is no matter as its all dissipated.

No energy, no matter, no space or time equals no universe, and no physical reality. If that is what Penrose calls aeons, then i’m sorry to say he is pulling your leg because it’s meaningless.

 

[IWantGod]

However, Penrose, based at the University of Oxford , has developed a rival theory known as “conformal cyclic cosmology“ (CCC) which posits that the universe became uniform before, rather than after, the Big Bang. The idea is that the universe cycles from one aeon to the next, each time starting out infinitely small and ultra-smooth before expanding and generating clumps of matter. That matter eventually gets sucked up by supermassive black holes, which over the very long term disappear by continuously emitting Hawking radiation. This process restores uniformity and sets the stage for the next Big Bang.

Like i thought, you have been misrepresenting Penrose with your own ideas.

In common speech, an infinitesimal object is an object that is smaller than any feasible measurement, but not zero in size—or, so small that it cannot be distinguished from zero by any available means. Hence, when used as an adjective, “infinitesimal” means "extremely small ".

 

[IWantGod]

So according to Penrose the particular expansion of our universe is one Aeon.

He goes on to speak about photons being left behind by black-holes that have dissipated, particles with no mass not experiencing a passage of time because of relativity, and that their infinity is their boundary, and on the other-side of that boundary is the big-bang. That boundary is seemingly expressed as the end of time in that particular aeon and the expansion of space-time on the other-side.

This is his hypothesis. Our universe becomes the big-bang of another universe. It’s a transformation. At no point does Penrose argue that there is a complete absence of physical reality at any point. That cannot possibly be what he means, since like you say nothing does not exist. So it is not no-thing in the philosophical sense of the word. Our aeon is made up of the energy or physical reality of the last aeon, otherwise you have things coming out of absolutely nothing which is metaphysically impossible.

You have to be careful to understand also that words like infinity and nothing take on different meanings in a scientific context and it would be an error to conflate this with their philosophical counterparts.

And finally, all this theory means is that physical reality doesn’t need an absolute “beginning” temporally speaking. There is a boundary between each universe, but they are not absolute beginnings to physical reality.

But even then it doesn’t follow that it is possible for there to be an actually infinite number of aeons. It just means that so long as the process exists, it continues from aeon to aeon in effect recycling itself.

 

[rossum]

When Stephen Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose extended the equations for general relativity to include space and time,

You are grossly misinformed. Einstein’s original paper on General Relativity treated space-time as a single four dimensional tensor. Time and space have been part of GR since 1907.

You need to find a better source, one which does not lead you into error.

 

[rossum]

You first need to understand how information is created…

Indeed. I need to be able to measure how information increases from 0 information initially to some larger quantity of information later. That means I need to be able to measure the quantity of information present. How are you measuring the quantity of those other forms of information?

I can measure Shannon information. I am waiting for you to tell me how to measure those other forms of information you talk about.

 

[Barnesy]

So according to Penrose the particular expansion of our universe is one Aeon.

He goes on to speak about photons being left behind by black-holes that have dissipated, particles with no mass not experiencing a passage of time because of relativity, and that their infinity is their boundary, and on the other-side of that boundary is the big-bang. That boundary is seemingly expressed as the end of time in that particular aeon and the expansion of space-time on the other-side.

This is his hypothesis. Our universe becomes the big-bang of another universe. It’s a transformation.

This is what i understand it means. I had read that what he means is that we end up with nothing as all particles lose there mass.

In Penrose’s theory, our universe has, and will again, return to a state of low entropy as it approaches its final days of expanding into eventual nothingness, Sir Roger Penrose: An Alternate Theory of the Big Bang?

The theory means that one eon is the cause of the next one and its not an infinite regress so we dont need anthing to create it. It does it itself.

 

[PickyPicky]

As I said before if time had no beginning, “today” would never be, since an endless amount of days would precede it.

I’ve never been convinced by this argument. From what point in time would it be impossible to proceed to today?

 

[ProdglArchitect]

I’ve never been convinced by this argument. From what point in time would it be impossible to proceed to today?

From any point in time, because you could never reach any given point in time. There would always be an infinite number of points prior to whatever point you’re trying to reaching, and therefore you could never reach that point.

We’ve reached today because we went through approx. 5,037,000,000,000 “days” since the start of time. We reached this point on the string of time only by passing through all preceding points. We started at 0, then 1, then 2, etc, until we reached today. If there had been an infinite number of days preceding this, that means that there is, effectively, no 0. There is nowhere to start counting from because there are always an infinite number of points along the timeline that you have to go through before you can reach any other point.

I’m not going to debate it, I just wanted to explain the premise of the argument.

 

[PickyPicky]

There is nowhere to start counting from

Start from wherever you want. Start yesterday, a year ago, a trillion years ago, and you can proceed to today. They only place you can’t start from is the beginning — and in this scenario there is no beginning.

From any point in time, because you could never reach any given point in time

From any point in time (except for the non-existent beginning) it is quite clear how you can get to today.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

You can’t start from anywhere, because you can never pass along enough time to reach any given point. I can never reach today because there are an infinite number of days prior to today that you have to go through to get to today. You can’t step into any “point” because that point your stepping into can never be reached.

I know you’re probably envisioning it as something like a line, and you’re standing beside it, and then you step onto that line and that’s what you call the start. That’s the image I get from your response, at least. The problem is that that isn’t an accurate depiction. In that sort of scenario, you cannot stand next to the line because the line never reaches you. In order to reach where you are it has to transverse an infinite number of points.

Let’s say you try to enter the timeline at point Q. In order to reach point Q it has to go through point P, and before that point O, and before that point N. Once it does all that it reaches point Q and you step out onto the line and call it 0. If the universe extends back infinitly, this doesn’t work. You can’t reach point Q because you can’t reach point P because you can’t reach point O, etc, because you never reach point A, or any point that would precede point A.

Incidentally, as someone who seems scientifically-inclined, you might be interested in reading a study which show that Time had to have a beginning. They examine three of the most commonly-presented potential alternatives and show that they all had to have a beginning, no matter how long they’ve been going since then.

Did the universe have a beginning?

 

[PickyPicky]

Yes, thanks for taking the trouble. I think the problem (as usual with stuff about infinity) is that our ape brains find infinity impossible to conjure with. The answer is, I think, that if time stretches back to infinity, then there is infinite time to get to any point (from the start, which doesn’t exist).

 

[lelinator]

I know you’re probably envisioning it as something like a line, and you’re standing beside it, and then you step onto that line and that’s what you call the start.

The problem is, that in Penrose’s CCC you can have a cycle with no discernible starting point. In such a scenario the idea of a starting point is meaningless. Think of your imaginary line as a circle…now where’s the starting point?

In Penrose’s CCC, since the beginning of one aeon looks exactly the same as the beginning of every other aeon, there’s no way to establish which aeon was the first, last, or billionth aeon. All that you have is an unknown number of aeons with no discernible causal order.

They simply exist, with no beginning.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Yes, thanks for taking the trouble.

Happy to do so. As much as this topic is incomprehensible, it’s a lot of fun to conjecture about.

(from the start, which doesn’t exist).

But if it stretches back infinitely, no amount of the passage of time will allow you reach any particular point, because you can always have another infinity to travel beforehand…

In Penrose’s CCC, since the beginning of one aeon looks exactly the same as the beginning of every other aeon, there’s no way to establish which aeon was the first, last, or billionth aeon. All that you have is an unknown number of aeons with no discernible causal order.

You should check this out, it addresses this theory. They conclude that a cyclical universe still had to have a starting point, even if it may never end.

Did the Universe Have a Beginning?

 

[lelinator]

You should check this out, it addresses this theory. They conclude that a cyclical universe still had to have a starting point, even if it may never end.

Do you realize that you’ve sort of shot yourself in the foot by citing that paper? Its author, Alexander Vilenkin does indeed argue against the cyclical universe theory, however, what does he propose instead…that the universe came into existence out of nothing.

So, you have a choice, either the universe is cyclical, or it came into existence out of nothing.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

or it came into existence out of nothing.

You do realize that Catholics believe the universe did come into existence out of nothingness… right? Like, that’s one of the foundational aspects of existence that is used in a significant number of arguments for the existence of God.

This presents absolutely no difficulty to me or any other Catholic.

 

[lelinator]

This presents absolutely no difficulty to me or any other Catholic.

Except that Vilenkin proposes that the universe can come into existence from nothing without any help from anything else.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Except that Vilenkin proposes that the universe can come into existence from nothing without any help from anything else.

Then I’d say he came to the wrong conclusion about the origin of creation. That doesn’t make his math wrong, only his interpretation.