Nothing cannot exist

[Tomdstone]

A
Negative one.

Wrong, because negative one is not in the interval {x: -1<x<1}. There is no smallest number in that finite interval. Closed and open intervals are taught in many high school math courses.

 

[Glassjester]

Wrong, because negative one is not in the interval {x: -1<x<1}. There is no smallest number in that finite interval. Closed and open intervals are taught in many high school math courses.

Yes, I understand. But you’re trying to make this correspond to the lifespan of the universe, right?

Take the interval 0<x<1.

The Big Bang would have to be at point 0.
Or… 0 + 1 Planck time. Still - a beginning.

In your preferred interval of -1<x<1, the starting point would have to be -1+1 Planck Time.

If you argue for no first point on the line, then you’re arguing that there was no Big Bang.

Anyway, I don’t see how this much matters.
You’d still need that interval to be infinitely divisible (which time is not). And even if it was, that is not the same as being infinitely long.

 

[Tomdstone]

Yes, I understand. But you’re trying to make this correspond to the lifespan of the universe, right?

Take the interval 0<x<1.

The Big Bang would have to be at point 0.
Or… 0 + 1 Planck time. Still - a beginning.

In your preferred interval of -1<x<1, the starting point would have to be -1+1 Planck Time.

If you argue for no first point on the line, then you’re arguing that there was no Big Bang.

Anyway, I don’t see how this much matters.
You’d still need that interval to be infinitely divisible (which time is not). And even if it was, that is not the same as being infinitely long.

You are assuming that the latest Big Bang, 14 Billion years ago, was the beginning. That is possible, of course, but a cyclic theory of the universe is also possible. This involves endless cycles of Big Bangs and Big Crunches.
In any case, the Planck time is not the shortest time possible. The Planck time is simply is the time required for light to travel, in a vacuum, a distance of 1 Planck length, approximately 5.39 × 10-44 s. It does not mean that it is the shortest possible time. The decoherence time can be much shorter than the Planck time. And the major reason why
discreteness of time has come into play is because of the fanfare given to loop quantum gravity which assumes that Einstein’s equations are more or less exact in the Planckian regime. But of course, loop quantum gravity, and its offshoot, spin foam theory, is a failed theory for several reasons, which means that there is no reason to assume discreteness of time. For one thing, the quantum version of relativity is not renormalizable and presents gauge anomalies. The spin foam version of loop quantum gravity breaks unitarity. The theory contradicts the well known and observed breaking of the CP symmetry. Although loop quantum gravity claims that general relativity is exact in the Planckian regime, it does not confirm the extension of the theory to long distances where general relativity has been tested. The quantization rules of loop quantum gravity break Lorentz invariance. Attempting to solve the ultra violet divergence problems by assuming discreteness of space and time implies that infinitely many coupling constants are required. The value of the Immirzi parameter has been shown to be incorrect and leads to a wrong value in black hole entropy. All physical theories so far rely on a separable Hilbert space, but loop quantum gravity depends on a non-separable Hilbert space, which gives an uncountable set of superselection sectors. And there are other reasons, but perhaps the biggest criticism is that the assumption of discreteness breaks the Lorentz invariance of the theory.
And in the equations of quantum mechanics, the time variable is assumed to be continuous anyway.

 

[ericc]

Yes, considering the fact that the universe exist. You can write this in syllogism:

1. The universe exists
2. The universe has a beginning (universe cannot be eternal and this can be proven)
3. There is no point before the beginning but after
4. Existence is necessary

There was a point when the universe did not exist. So it was not necessary.

 

[IWantGod]

We refer to nothing as a state of existence, lack of being, prior to beginning (creation point for example). There is however no point before beginning because there is nothing before hence nothing cannot exist. Something must exist if nothing cannot exist. That thing can only be the universe.

1. Nothing cannot exist
2. Therefore a necessary unchanging eternal being must exist.

 

[Glassjester]

You are assuming that the latest Big Bang, 14 Billion years ago, was the beginning. That is possible, of course, but a cyclic theory of the universe is also possible. This involves endless cycles of Big Bangs and Big Crunches.

No, even the cyclic model does not imply infinite cycles.

You’d still have the problem of an infinitely long time period… somehow ending.

 

[Tomdstone]

No, even the cyclic model does not imply infinite cycles.
.

"The cyclic universe theory is a model of cosmic evolution according to which the universe undergoes endless cycles of expansion and cooling, each beginning with a “big bang” and ending in a “big crunch”. "
Cyclic universe theory
Article By:
Steinhardt, Paul J. Princeton Center for Theoretical Science and Department of Physics, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey.
Publication year:2009

 

[Glassjester]

"The cyclic universe theory is a model of cosmic evolution according to which the universe undergoes endless cycles of expansion and cooling, each beginning with a “big bang” and ending in a “big crunch”. "
Cyclic universe theory
Article By:
Steinhardt, Paul J. Princeton Center for Theoretical Science and Department of Physics, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey.
Publication year:2009

Wasn’t his theory debunked?

theguardian.com/science/2014/mar/18/stephen-hawking-gravitational-wave-bet-big-bang

 

[Tomdstone]

Wasn’t his theory debunked?

theguardian.com/science/2014/mar/18/stephen-hawking-gravitational-wave-bet-big-bang

the red spectrum of newly found gravitational waves are problematical, but there are conceivable effects that can add non-gaussian features to the primordial spectrum before the bounce.

 

[Glassjester]

the red spectrum of newly found gravitational waves are problematical, but there are conceivable effects that can add non-gaussian features to the primordial spectrum before the bounce.

Still, if there were an infinite number of cycles preceding this particular cycle, then we could never actually get to this particular cycle.

Yet here we are.

 

[STT]

There was a point when the universe did not exist. So it was not necessary.

There is no point before beginning since there is no time before it.

 

[STT]

1. Nothing cannot exist
2. Therefore a necessary unchanging eternal being must exist.

We used the existence of universe to show that nothing cannot exist. So at best we can say that universe is necessary exists.

 

[IWantGod]

We used the existence of universe to show that nothing cannot exist. So at best we can say that universe is necessary exists.

The existence of the universe does not in itself show that nothing cannot exist. Nothing cannot exist because nothing cannot be a thing.

If the universe was necessary it would not change or evolve because every part or instant of it would be necessarily real. It could not move from potential to actuality because everything that it is is already realised. it would have no potential in it.

 

[Tomdstone]

Still, if there were an infinite number of cycles preceding this particular cycle, then we could never actually get to this particular cycle.

Yet here we are.

As i pointed out, i don’t believe that this line of argumentation is correct.
And as far as debunking the cyclical theory of the universe as given by Steinhardt because of gravitational waves, I am not sure about it, because the gravitational waves detected recently were at the collision of two black holes, not at the point of the BB? Further, there is an alternative cyclical theory of the universe proposed by Paul H.Frampton, who has 250 or so published papers and over 7000 citations and who has co-authored with three Nobel Laureates. OTOH, there are wild stories in the international press about professor Frampton and an incredibly beautiful young Czech model being involved in some sort of drug smuggling operation from Argentina. The Czech model has been cleared of the charges, but prof. Frampton was convicted. He claims he was scammed, but IMHO, his story seems fishy to me.
arxiv.org/abs/1411.7887
amazon.com/Tricked-story-internet-Paul-Frampton-ebook/dp/B00RBVDAD0/ref=sr_1_fkmr1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1481250542&sr=8-1-fkmr1&keywords=paul+h.+frampton
dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2183861/Denise-Milani-Bikini-model-terrified-drugs-gang-used-honeytrap-science-professor.html

nytimes.com/2013/03/10/magazine/the-professor-the-bikini-model-and-the-suitcase-full-of-trouble.html?_r=0

 

[STT]

The existence of the universe does not in itself show that nothing cannot exist.

It does follow if you read the argument in OP another time more carefully.

Nothing cannot exist because nothing cannot be a thing.

So what God did? I thought He create something out of nothing.

If the universe was necessary it would not change or evolve because every part or instant of it would be necessarily real.

I cannot follow you here. Why does something which is not necessary change?

It could not move from potential to actuality because everything that it is is already realised. it would have no potential in it.

The universe is constantly under realization. Something which has no potential is static. It is fulfilled but it is dead.