User Name:

Password:

FAQ Donate Join

Atheist Community of Austin
Whats the deal with abolute infinites?

I don't quite understand the refutation to why the universe can't be infinitely old. By this I mean, that the universe had to have a beginning.

OneMan said, "I don't quite understand the refutation to why the universe can't be infinitely old."

Scientists know that the universe is around 13.7 billion years old. That is not infinitely old it is finite. Time is in the universe; the universe is not in time. Sizes are in the universe, but the universe is not itself (in size.) However, it is important to remember that - while the universe is not (finite) in time or (finite) in size - it is certainly finite. The reason for this is that "finite" is not very descriptive. To say that something is finite is to say that it possesses a specific identity. The universe exists therefore it is finite. If everything that exists must be finite, then everything that exists (existence) must be finite. Existence exists = finitely.

OneMan said, "By this I mean, that the universe had to have a beginning."

Astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning. The Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) is incontrovertible evidence that the Universe experienced a "Big Bang." Everything in the universe evolved from the Big Bang. Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our universe. Our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago. After its initial appearance, it inflated the Big Bang, expanded and cooled, going from very, very small and very, very hot, to the size and temperature of our current universe. It continues to expand and cool to this day and we are inside of it: space didn't exist prior to the Big Bang. Space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy. The singularity didn't appear in space; space began inside of the singularity. Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy - nothing.

Great answer Linda!

Linda, we don't yet know what happened before the Plank time. There are several models that are consistent with what we can so far observe. One includes continuously branching 'universes'. Quantum fluctuations in the Inflaton field also do not require a singularity. I highly recommend Prof. Susskind's lectures to all who want to know the basics of what we know about Cosmology now. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32wIKaLkvc4 (And lest the readers get misled,the cosmic microwave background radiation is is our view of the universe when it was around 400,000 years old and became transparent.)

sleepy314 said, "Linda, we don't yet know what happened before the Plank time. There are several models that are consistent with what we can so far observe. One includes continuously branching 'universes'.

This discussion was about whether or not the Universe is infinite. What we know from the most recent scientific evidence is that the universe is not infinite, it is finite, and it started at some point, and is in constant expansion. By the way, the beginning of time is defined by the Big Bang itself; you cannot talk about before the Big Bang, because there was no before. Nothing before the Big Bang would have any bearing on the Universe after the Big Bang.

Plank time is the smallest span of time able to be measured according to physics. It is theorized before a time classified as a Planck time, 10-43 seconds, all of the four fundamental forces were unified into one force.

Einstein found that space and times are part of the physical universe, and they are linked. In fact, space as one thing and time, as another is not a valid concept. Einstein's theory of space and time unified them in a space-time continuum. Space has three dimensions, and time has one, so space-time is a four-dimensional continuum. The big bang was a sudden, explosive origin of space, time, and matter. Time did not always exist. Time emerged out of space in a continuous process. Continuous meaning time-like quality of a dimension, as opposed to space-like quality, it is not all space or all time; there are shades in between. This can be made as a precise mathematical statement. Time does not exist independently of our universe; so it makes no sense to ask what happened before the Big Bang. Albert Einstein's realized that time is relative. It speeds up or slows down depending on how fast one thing is moving relative to something else. For perception of motion to exist at all, it must be what it is, in its entirety, over a non-zero period of time. Time began with the cosmic origin. There was no time before time. The big bang was the beginning of time itself; any discussion about before the big bang is meaningless.

sleepy314 said, "Quantum fluctuations in the Inflaton field also do not require a singularity."

The Universe expanded from a primordial dense initial condition approximately 13.7 billion years ago, and continues to expand to this day. Experiments by cosmologists were able to prove that any universe, which has been expanding throughout its history cannot be infinite, it must have a past space-time boundary. The Big Bang theory is based on numerous observations, and measurements. Nothing has replaced the Big Bang theory as of right now. The Big Bang theory has been revised and refined and scientifically established to a point that it would be very difficult to establish another theory, and every single Big Bang model shows the existence of a singularity.

A branch of scientific inquiry called quantum physics deals with events that occur at the atomic level. On the scale of atoms and molecules, the usual rules of cause and effect are suspended. The rule of law is replaced by a sort of pandemonium, and things happen spontaneously for no particular reason. Particles of matter may simply pop into existence without warning, and then equally abruptly disappear again. Or a particle in one place may suddenly materialize in another place, or reverse its direction of motion. Again, these are real effects occurring on an atomic scale, and they can be demonstrated experimentally. What has been learned from quantum physics is this: Sometimes things just happen - this does not violate the laws of physics. The abrupt and uncaused appearance of something can occur within the scope of scientific law, once quantum laws have been taken into account. Nature has the capacity for genuine spontaneity. The spontaneous appearance of the singularity (universe) from nothing need not break scientific laws or be unnatural or unscientific, and it was not a supernatural event.

Various religious persuasions try to claim that quantum mechanics support their "god did it" theory and they do try to use new scientific theories to support their specific ideologies that they promote. The most usual way they have gotten their ideologies to conform to new scientific discoveries is through twisting scientific theories (quantum mechanics) in order to prove what they already believe.

The singularity is a point of energy. Energy and matter can not be created or destroyed. It can only change form. One evidence of the Big Bang is the Cosmic Microwave Background. In quantum theory, particles can be created out of energy from particle/antiparticle pairs. But that just raises the question of where the energy came from. The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero. The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to spend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together. So, in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, this shows that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is exactly zero.

sleepy314 said, "I highly recommend Prof. Susskind's lectures to all who want to know the basics of what we know about Cosmology now.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32wIKaLkvc4 (And lest the readers get misled,the cosmic microwave background radiation is is our view of the universe when it was around 400,000 years old and became transparent.)"

The Keck II telescope, the world's largest telescope, on top of Mauna Kea (Hawaii) has looked at the early universe when it was only 500 millions of years old and found evidence of galaxies just beginning to form stars. When you look into space, the further back you look the further you are looking back in time. We cannot look out into space, without looking back into time. The Cosmic Microwave Background is proof that the Big Bang did occur. The fact is that we can photograph the whole observable universe when it was only 400 000 years old. There are pictures of the universe that show the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation (the oldest light in the universe) and The Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) produced them. From the farthest edges of the visible universe, astronomers can collect light that left its source about 10 billion years ago, when the universe was young. Astronomers even have a term for it: A "light-year" is the distance it takes light to travel in a year. The farthest edges of the visible universe, then, are about 13 billion light-years away, and what we see there are things that happened at the beginning of time.

The most conclusive (and most carefully examined) piece of evidence for the Big Bang is the existence of an isotropic radiation bath that permeates the entire Universe known as the "cosmic microwave background" (CMB). Isotropic means the same in all directions; the degree of anisotropy of the CMB is about one part in a thousand. While the CMB is predicted to be very smooth, the lack of features cannot be perfect. At some level it is expected to see irregularities, or anisotropy, in the temperature of the radiation. These temperature fluctuations are the imprints of very small irregularities, which through time have grown to become the galaxies and clusters of galaxies, which we see today. A map of the sky at microwave frequencies, shows that the CMB is almost completely the same in all directions. Given this level of isotropy (same in all directions) together with the accurate black-body spectrum, any attempt to interpret the origin of the CMB as due to present astrophysical phenomena (stars, dust, radio galaxies, etc.) is no longer credible. Therefore, the only satisfactory explanation for the existence of the CMB lies in the physics of the early Universe. The Big Bang.

Infinitely old? Meaning there has always been something and that the concept of zero is man made?

And even before the universe was arranged into the current order its in today that there was still something before it?

You should give some kind of reason or proof that the universe is infinite. I gave reasons why I think that the universe is finite.

The Universe is not infinite because we know that the Universe started from a Big Bang. And its size has been expanding ever since. At each point in the past through to the present, the Universe measures a finite size with 0 unit of size at t=0. Therefore the universe has always been and is to the present moment finite. The universe is expanding but that does not matter because at each specific time, the universe will always be of finite size, for that reason, to speak of an infinite universe is nonsense. An infinite universe can only exist in a static infinite universe where the universe has always been infinite, and we know that is not the case.

In the 1920's astronomer Edwin Hubble discovered that the galaxies where moving away, and that at some time in the past they were closer together and if you looked back in time, to the beginning, they would come together so tightly compact that it formed a single point. Before the Big Bang there was nothing, after the Big Bang there was something, our Universe. The galaxies themselves aren't moving but it's space that's expanding and therefore moving the galaxies. I do believe that you are trying your best, but why don't you come back after you get your Ph.D. and Nobel Prize. In the meantime I think I'll stick with the scientists.

**** Linda said, Before the Big Bang there was nothing, ****

That is where my problem lies.

As a computer programmer who programs virtual worlds I've had to start at nothing and begin with my first object and its initial movement. But I never really started with nothing. I just don't see how its possible for nothing to create something. Therefore the only explanation is:

nothing aka zero is a man made concept, it's flawed. By denoting zero as nothing we are acknowledging its existence. But it doesn't really exist. So really the only thing left is infinity or one right? Can we call infinity one? I know it's cliche but "everything is one", etc.

So the next question is do we have objective evidence for the proof of nothing? My interest in this is genuine and I have no agenda. If someone else reads this post and I was the one who asked the dumb question so be it lol.

From: Mr. T,

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Computer programmers are not physicists, and even if you were a computer programmer; it's not quantum physics? . The relationship between nothing and something: Quantum physics studies quanta, the smallest particles that make up matter. This form of physics made a discovery, which has since been confirmed time and time again. Particles are particles, but then they are not; they are waves. Because particles are and are not particles, if we know where one is now we cannot know where it will be in the next moment. One of the amazing consequences of this uncertainty principle is that ephemeral pairs of particles, virtual particles, at times pop up from nothing, from out of the cosmic void. They suddenly exist, only to vanish again. The existence of these field particles is implied by the absolutely uncertain state of energy of any region of space.

We know the expansion of the universe is accelerating because of new observations. The new findings give additional support to the theory that the universe immediately after its birth underwent a period of rapidly accelerating expansion. The theory of inflation - the entire universe was created from nothing at all.

Quantum theory and inflation theories explain where the singularity came from. Over the last 25 years theorists have offered plausible explanations of both how the singularity came to be and how it then became an expanding universe. The uncertainty principle implies that the energy level of any region fluctuates haphazardly and without reason. It is because of this fluctuation that even in a complete vacuum with an energy level of zero, tiny fields of gravity at random pop into existence from nothing, then vanish from being as suddenly as they appeared. These events do not violate the laws of conservation because the fleeting fields of gravity are ephemeral, virtual fields.

Inflationary theory shows how a tiny, ephemeral speck emerge from "nothingness" could be boosted into permanence by a period of accelerating expansion and then continue expanding to become "something" the vast universe we know. According to the theory, in the expanding field matter is created out of the growing energy of gravity itself. The matter is considered positive energy, and the gravity is considered negative. The two mathematically cancel each other out, so that the total energy of the growing universe is zero. So the laws of conservation are not violated.

Before I answer there is no way I can ever be on the side of "we came from nothing". I firmly and will always believe that nothing is a man made concept and that with further study it will be revealed that there is always truly something there.

**** You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Computer programmers are not physicists, and even if you were a computer programmer; it's not quantum physics? The relationship between nothing and something: Quantum physics studies quanta, the smallest particles that make up matter. This form of physics made a discovery, which has since been confirmed time and time again. Particles are particles, but then they are not; they are waves. Because particles are and are not particles, if we know where one is now we cannot know where it will be in the next moment. One of the amazing consequences of this uncertainty principle is that ephemeral pairs of particles, virtual particles, at times pop up from nothing, from out of the cosmic void. They suddenly exist, only to vanish again. The existence of these field particles is implied by the absolutely uncertain state of energy of any region of space. ****

Assuming energy cannot be created or destroyed, doesn't it makes more sense to assume these particles are simply entering another dimension of space then coming back to this one with every particle being accounted for? For every particle that exits another enters in its place so that this finite universe (an object) keeps its exact mass (hopefully my point gets across if I made some mistakes).

**** We know the expansion of the universe is accelerating because of new observations. The new findings give additional support to the theory that the universe immediately after its birth underwent a period of rapidly accelerating expansion. The theory of inflation - the entire universe was created from nothing at all. ****

Do you know the exact means of observation being used to witness a quantum bubble forming from nothing? Is it technological or theoretical? Let's assume both for the moment since I don't know the answer. If it's technological who is to say that in 2000 more years another device detects something is actually there before the quantum bubble is formed.

The rabbit hole keeps going down further and further and further doesn't it?

Ultimately is it these theories that keep you from believing in God? There is so much room for error and doubt. It is entertaining and thought provoking but it is not even close to a strong enough case for not nothing believing in God.

**** Quantum theory and inflation theories explain where the singularity came from. Over the last 25 years theorists have offered plausible explanations of both how the singularity came to be and how it then became an expanding universe. The uncertainty principle implies that the energy level of any region fluctuates haphazardly and without reason. It is because of this fluctuation that even in a complete vacuum with an energy level of zero, tiny fields of gravity at random pop into existence from nothing, then vanish from being as suddenly as they appeared. These events do not violate the laws of conservation because the fleeting fields of gravity are ephemeral, virtual fields. Inflationary theory shows how a tiny, ephemeral speck emerge from "nothingness" could be boosted into permanence by a period of accelerating expansion and then continue expanding to become "something" the vast universe we know. According to the theory, in the expanding field matter is created out of the growing energy of gravity itself. The matter is considered positive energy, and the gravity is considered negative. The two mathematically cancel each other out, so that the total energy of the growing universe is zero. So the laws of conservation are not violated. ****

Sounds very discouraging.

Let's go out on a limb here and say that for a moment there was objective evidence proving without a shadow of doubt that we came from "nothing" and not God. Imagine breaking that news to 95% of the believers in the world. What kind of impact do you think that would have?

Instead of God's love it would be replaced by the emptiness and lack of purpose the inflation theory promotes. If an asteroid were to hit us tomorrow, that's it. What a horrible way to live and think. It feels so empty and devoid of meaning.

We need God to have a purpose. I for one am not strong enough minded to think the way you guys do. I need an alpha master. Must be my animal instincts getting in the way. God is the ultimate alpha master that I can conceive and submit to. I need to follow a natural order of a supreme being. I feel it right now in my mind & body. Either i'm delusional or i'm brutally honest since I have no pride and ego.

Linda, to believe that physics WITHIN this universe explains everything that is possible is rather limited, isn't it? String theory alone posits 11 dimensions and its equations have about 10 to the 500th power possible solutions, our universe being but one of them. Do we know for a fact that String Theory is wrong? It probably is, as most theories are proven wrong by subsequent theories.

Whatever condition physics is in at any given point of time is a work in progress, nothing more. Science (astrophysics) does not purport to explain what existed prior to the Big Bang. There are many theoretical physicists who propose that our universe came into being as a result of a "collision" of neighboring universes, for example

The most we can say with some certainty about the beginning of our universe is that it was the beginning of what we currently know as space-time. It cannot exclude the existence of an infinite number of space-time-other-dimensional universes, each with unique laws of physics that we cannot comprehend, existing and interacting in an infinite manner. We cannot begin to conceive of such things. To say that "the universe arose from nothing and that's the end of the story" is a failure of imagination and a classic example of Enlightenment empiricist thinking. If it cannot be measured, it must be dismissed. Haven't we learned better?

The difference in what Linda was doing in this discussion and the attempts at one-upmanship are this: She is answering specific questions in detail. She is answering questions with what has been established through experiments and observation. She is not answering the questions with what might be true. She is not answering questions with theories that don't have answers. The Big Bang Theory is the basis for all scientific research because it has stood up to every test. A bitter pill for the Intelligent Design crowd I'm sure.

The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) is recreating the Big Bang. Their experiments are based on the Big Bang theory. The Big Bang theory states that the universe was created when a minute, incredibly dense, incredibly hot mass exploded and began expanding very rapidly, eventually cooling and forming into the stars and galaxies. Ever since then, space has been stretching and cooling. This is the only theory that successfully explains the observations made by astronomers.

These things are observable: Astronomers see galaxies moving apart from one another - space in the universe is stretching. The unvarying microwave glow everywhere in the sky is the heat left over from an earlier time, when the universe was very hot. This was predicted by the Big Bang theory before it was discovered.

The Big Bang theory explains the most basic observed properties of our universe, and it is one of the most strongly supported theories in all of science. It explains the observed facts; it has made successful predictions; it has stood the test of time; and there is no alternate theory that the professional scientific community deems valid. I'm scientists, or anyone with a lick of sense, won't answer questions with things that have not been proven; because that is not unlike the claim that god created everything, and that is beyond the realm of possible.

In closing, the theories mentioned - time dimensions - sting theory (gravity) wouldn't change any of the facts in this discussion. There is nothing outside the Universe and it is not infinite. Our current theory is more accurate than any other proposed and has eliminated some competing ideas. Some people haven't learned much of anything. Perhaps someday they won't be so quick to barge into a discussion to criticize someone for using facts instead of conjecture.

String theory (theoretical physics) is a mathematical theory that up to now we couldn't test. The reason we can't test String theory is the difficulties in creating the extreme energy levels required for testing. String theory unites Einstein's 'Theory of Relativity' with quantum physics and offers a potential explanation for the Big Bang. Einstein wanted to unite the four fundamental forces under one theory. The theory of everything is sound theoretically. There are a number of complex theories that (quantum physics) the science that deals with discrete, indivisible units of energy, can unit with what we can observe. String theory unites Einstein's Theory of Relativity with quantum physics and offers a potential explanation for the Big Bang, and there are many theories but none has replaced any existing theory, or been experimentally proven. Some recent versions of string theory have predicted that the strings could have a longer length, up to nearly a millimeter in size, which would mean they're in the realm that experiments could detect them.

The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) can expand our limited understanding of these theories. The LHC experiments with particles that collide into each other at high speeds. By observing these collisions, scientists can attempt to test the latest theories. It is presumed that any theory of quantum gravity would require higher energies to probe than the Large Hadron Collider can reach. There is one possibility of testing the existence of large extra dimensions of space and of fundamental strings if there are strings that are up to nearly a millimeter in size.

The eleventh dimension of string theory predicts a new kind of string, that stretches continuously to create what is termed a floating membrane, or brane (M-theory) that our universe and others are created by collisions between p-branes. According to string theory, an unknown number of branes exist that each supports a separate but parallel universe. This is an attempt to explain what caused the Big Bang not creation.

String theory offers a possible explanation for the Big Bang. The theory is attempting to find the initial cause for an event, the Big Bang. Now string theorists believe that two branes colliding could have caused the Big Bang event.

Some scientists believe that without the ability to prove the theory, it is not true science at all. But many scientists do believe that proof of string theory will come with technological progress and time.

Without experiments a possible explanation for something is not (yet) a scientific theory. To become a scientific theory it will require testing and rigorous proof. Many very good possible explanations have come and gone that didn't stand up to testing and new technology. However, none of these theories are about proving a creator.

When someone tests and observes God that will be when we should believe that god exists. An idea is not a fact until you prove it to be a fact. There is a huge difference in science and religion. Science is always changing and progressing, and religion never will. When a scientific theory is proven wrong or defective it is changed or removed; religion has never corrected anything that was clearly wrong, those things are ignored along with the forgeries. Religion does not make progress and it does not change the things that are wrong.

People who think that the Universe was not the result of the Big Bang don't really want to delve into quantum physics too much because I think that it is going to prove them wrong. Scientists want to know how things happened and they are looking for answers to those kinds of questions. They are not answering the questions with "god did it." God is not a scientific theory and science is no place for religious politicking. Science is not trying to prove anything about god.

That should say To: Mr. T. not From. That is my answer to the idea that computer programming and physics are the same science.

They're not the same science (I'm a computer programmer).

However, to claim that there was nothing before the Big Bang is to claim something that we cannot show through empirical evidence. In my layman's understanding, it is possible within the mathematics of relativity/quantum physics for a universe to come from nothing, but unless I'm mistaken, people have done models of what such a universe would look like (mathematically, I think, not necessarily a simulation - although I'd have to hunt through my library for a reference), and they do not match up to what we observe. Which doesn't necessarily mean that there /wasn't/ nothing before the big bang, just that by the rules as we know them today, the ways we know that there could have been nothing are excluded by not matching up with observation.

String theorists have models of things like two colliding branes resulting in the universe and the Big Bang, but they haven't positively shown it had to have happened. There are a ton of different models (not just from string theory), but none of them have been shown to be true through empirical evidence, so we can't claim that there was something before the Big Bang, either.

And it's going to be a neat trick to show any of them to be true, because we can't see back past a certain point, because there's an information barrier.

Mr. T, the rules inside our universe are not necessarily the rules outside our universe (if there even is anything outside our universe) - time and space are properties of the structure of our universe. And our universe works by very strange rules at quantum levels, rules which sometimes defy what we perceive as cause and effect at larger scales. So making the claim that there had to be something isn't justified, either - something might not be able to come from nothing at the macro level within our universe, but we've no basis for extending that out to everything, and indications from what we know of quantum physics that we should *not* extend those rules beyond where we know they are applicable.

We just don't know at this point whether or not there was nothing before the big bang - scientists are trying to figure it out. And I'm ok with that.

The universe has a begining, we think, its called the big bang theory. Theres also a multi universe theory, Which means universes come into existance and die on a regular basis in a sea of infinate universes. No i dont believe universes live on forever, although the time they do "live" for is extraordinary, googols of years. Time itself, from my comprehention as a human, seems to have no begining, or end, or maybe its a continuous loop, and we will be typing these same words the next time it wraps around.

Vic210x2 said, "The universe has a begining, we think, its called the big bang theory. Theres also a multi universe theory, Which means universes come into existance and die on a regular basis in a sea of infinate universes. No i dont believe universes live on forever, although the time they do "live" for is extraordinary, googols of years. Time itself, from my comprehention as a human, seems to have no begining, or end, or maybe its a continuous loop, and we will be typing these same words the next time it wraps around."

The universe has not existed forever. The universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down. Nevertheless, the laws of physics would, have determined the way the universe began, if the universe satisfied the no boundary condition. This says that in the imaginary time direction, space-time is finite in extent, but doesn't have any boundary or edge.

There is observable evidence for the Big Bang theory. The cosmology theory that there is a huge number of universes known as multiverse is only a model without observable evidence. Some physicists have theorized that only universes with laws of physics that are "fine tuned" could support life. If things were even a fraction different from our universe there would be no intelligent life. That would mean that our physical laws might be explained "anthropically," meaning if they were not as they are there would be no life otherwise to observe them. But MIT physics professor Robert Jaffe and his collaborators decided to test this anthropic explanation. So, they tested whether universes with different physical laws could support life. The MIT physicists have showed that universes quite different from ours still have elements similar to carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen, and could therefore evolve life forms quite similar to us, even when the masses of elementary particles called quarks are dramatically altered.

The fact that the universe had a beginning does not imply the existence of a supernatural being who created the universe or multiverse. Even though the universe and the human race did not exist forever. If God created the universe or multiverse then what caused God's existence and what caused that cause and so on. The "god did it" explanation does nothing to establish what actually was the cause of the existence of the universe.

The big bang theory is that the universe was barely perceptible (tiny) and infinitely (compact) dense and incredibly hot. All the laws of physics broke down. This was the beginning of time. Time begun from a singularity at the big bang real time has a beginning at the Big Bang, some ten to twenty billion years ago. The evidence for the Big Bang event is just about irrefutable. The universe began with the Big Bang. The big bang could have been caused by a (black hole) a void.

Imaginary time is a new quantum theory. Remember this is an idea (mathematical) there is no evidence other than a mathematical model for imaginary time. In the model there is real time as a horizontal line, to the left is the past and to the right is the future. Then there is another kind of time (imaginary) in the vertical direction.

Remember that the multiverse is scientific hypothesis (a model) with no observable evidence. It has been written about in science fiction with other parallel (exact copies) universes some how merging into each other, but that is fantasy. Science fiction author Michael Moorcock popularized the term "multiverse", which was originally coined by William James. In these contexts, parallel universes are also called alternate universes, quantum universes, parallel worlds, or alternate realities. But if there are other universes they could be nothing at all like ours (not an exact copy) as the MIT study seems to have proven. I think their texts and experiments prove that life on earth was not "fine tuned" but could have evolved under very different conditions. It might have evolved differently, according to the conditions, but it might even have been better.

A googolplex is an extremely large number, but it is not infinite. Infinity is just an idea; it's not quantifiable. Infinite cannot be defined as a number.

OneMan,

I wish to clarify what you are asking about.

Were you simply asking why we don't think the universe can be infinite (as answered below)?

Or was your question (esp. the 'absolute infinities' part) about William Lane Craig's paper on the cosmological argument (Kalam)?

Thanks Mk

MK,

I don't know why you think that anyone was talking about William Lane Craig's Kalam Cosmological Argument. I can't find one mention of it by the person who posted the topic.

Unless what I have read was sadly mistaken, Craig seems to think that the big bang confirms the Biblical view of creation? That should get a horselaugh from every scientist worth a dime.

There are naturalistic explanations for the existence of the universe and life in the universe that are preferable to supernatural explanations. The theories that involve natural causes have stood the test of time, and there is no reason to resort to supernatural causes.

When we find things we do not know, we keep looking for testable explanations or theories? That is the scientific approach. "God did it" has never answered anything, and has never been used in any theory that advanced our scientific knowledge of anything.

From what I have read I would say his ideas are based on low probability, however things with low probability happen all the time, and that explanation would not prove anything about what may are may not have happened.

Follow us on:

twitter facebook meetup

blip.tv ustream.tv

From the officers:

The audio and video from Steve Bratteng's July 13th lecture are now available.