Eternal Inflation and it's Philospohical implications

  • Thread starter heusdens
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Inflation
In summary, the concept of eternal inflation, which involves the continuous reproduction of new space-time bubbles, may eliminate the need for a beginning of time in the universe. However, the pre-existing space in this model is also expanding, potentially leading to a beginning in the form of a singularity. The idea of an infinite and expanding universe may be unsettling, but it has been used in various theories such as steady state and M-theory to explain the universe. The concept of infinity has both been used to create successful theories, but also to reveal flaws in others. Only further research and evidence can confirm or refute the validity of these
  • #71
Originally posted by wuliheron
Apparently we have another brazen liar in our midst, either that or you have no clue what you have said and don't mind inserting foot into mouth. This is what you wrote:

Well then excuse me!

I hold it my previous post explained it clearly, it must have been a slip of the typewriter to say that infinity is a number.

All cleared up now?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #72
Well then excuse me!

I hold it my previous post explained it clearly, it must have been a slip of the typewriter to say that infinity is a number.

All cleared up now?

There now, that wasn't difficult, was it.

For just a slip of the typewritter you sure dragged your feet on that one which is just basic mathematical theory.

Ancient Chinese saying,

Don't listen to what people say, watch what they do.
 
  • #73
Originally posted by wuliheron
There now, that wasn't difficult, was it.

For just a slip of the typewritter you sure dragged your feet on that one which is just basic mathematical theory.

Ok. Now, can we go back to the topic?
 
  • #74
Ok. Now, can we go back to the topic?

You've always had the power to go back to Kansas Dorathy. Just click your heals together three times and say, "I want to go home..."
 
  • #75
Originally posted by wuliheron
Utter trash once again. You have repeatedly demanded I disprove heusdens' assertion that infinity is a number. If you could care less, why are you so persistent in your demands? If all you care about is discussing the usefulness of infinity, why all the personal insults? If heusdens is so sure of his assertion or so humble, why hasn't he addressed my challange for him to prove his assertion and, in fact, blatently ignored my challange?

Likewise, why should I allow you to insult me and just move on with more such utter garbage? I don't demand that people prove everything they believe, but when they start claiming scientific validity, objectivity, and evidence for such BS I will challange them. Outrageous claims demand outrageous evidence, and outrageous insults demand explanation.

Do not whine about personal remarks. You started them. You kept using your - now-famous - sarcasm and insults, which destroy any rational conversation. It is human nature that we "bite back" a little.

Fliption is right - put discussions of the rational/irrational nature of infinity in threads devoted to that type of discussion.
 
  • #76
Originally posted by wuliheron
You've always had the power to go back to Kansas Dorathy. Just click your heals together three times and say, "I want to go home..."

... said the tornado that carries all topics off to the land of "wuliheronish" unreasonability. No offense, but it was you who side-tracked the topic.
 
  • #77
... said the tornado that carries all topics off to the land of "wuliheronish" unreasonability. No offense, but it was you who side-tracked the topic.

Infinity IS the topic. All I did was insist infinity is not a number and challange anyone to prove me wrong. No one did prove me wrong, but they did insist on insulting me. You'd better talk to them about changing the subject.

As usual, "Me thinks he doth protest too much."
 
  • #78
Originally posted by wuliheron
Infinity IS the topic. All I did was insist infinity is not a number and challange anyone to prove me wrong. No one did prove me wrong, but they did insist on insulting me. You'd better talk to them about changing the subject.

As usual, "Me thinks he doth protest too much."

Eternal inflation and it's philosophical implications is the topic, and infinity is just a sub-topic.
 
  • #79
Do not whine about personal remarks. You started them. You kept using your - now-famous - sarcasm and insults, which destroy any rational conversation. It is human nature that we "bite back" a little.

Fliption is right - put discussions of the rational/irrational nature of infinity in threads devoted to that type of discussion.

Ya'll have dogged my own posts about paradox forever and now you want special treatment in return. You want to be free to discuss infinity as if it were an established scientific fact and present whatever misleading interpretations of the subject you want as accepted philosophical dogma, read my lips:

Fat Chance!
 
  • #80
Eternal inflation and it's philosophical implications is the topic, and infinity is just a sub-topic.

That's true, better get your facts straight from the ground up and tell other people to please stop talking for you if you want to get back to topic faster. Just click those little heals together Dorathy... that or go back to Oz.
 
  • #82
A lecture of Andrei Linde (Stanford University) on http://pauli.physics.lsa.umich.edu/w/arch/som/sto2001/Linde/real/n001.htm"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #83
Infinity is unavoidable, unless one wants to introduce some "outside" cause to the universe. For a lengthy discussion on this, read this thread.

All that says to me is that paradox is unavoidable according to our current view of the universe. Duh! People have known that since prehistoric times and Zeno of Elias pointed that out using logic 2,500 years ago without being so verbose and obtuse.
 
  • #84
Originally posted by wuliheron
Infinity IS the topic. All I did was insist infinity is not a number and challange anyone to prove me wrong. No one did prove me wrong, but they did insist on insulting me. You'd better talk to them about changing the subject.

As usual, "Me thinks he doth protest too much."

Challenge people to prove that infinity is not a number, on another thread. This one is about the philosophical implications of eternal inflation.
 
  • #85
Originally posted by heusdens
Infinity is unavoidable, unless one wants to introduce some "outside" cause to the universe. For a lengthy discussion on this, read https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=958"

But hey, the no boundary proposal avoids infinity completely. Both time and space are finite. Quantum gravity pending, the other kind of infinity associated with space and time may be avoided, so long as they are both discrete. Such a model is compatible with inflation models.

On a similar topic, here is a link that you might find interesting: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9712344

From the URL: "...an inflationary universe gives rise to baby universes, one of which turns out to be itself. Interestingly, the laws of physics may allow the Universe to be its own mother."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #86
Challenge people to prove that infinity is not a number, on another thread. This one is about the philosophical implications of eternal inflation.

Duh!

I will challange such nonsense in the name of mathematics any time I please. As I already said Dorathy, if you want to stay in OZ that is your affair. This is a physics philosophy bulletin board, not the land of Oz where anything is possible. One of the philosophical implications of an eternal inflationary universe is that it is paradoxical and infinity not being a number is one of the reasons why.
 
  • #87
Originally posted by Eh
But hey, the no boundary proposal avoids infinity completely. Both time and space are finite. Quantum gravity pending, the other kind of infinity associated with space and time may be avoided, so long as they are both discrete. Such a model is compatible with inflation models.

Space perhaps, not time.
The finiteness of space has not been proven however.


On a similar topic, here is a link that you might find interesting: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9712344

From the URL: "...an inflationary universe gives rise to baby universes, one of which turns out to be itself. Interestingly, the laws of physics may allow the Universe to be its own mother."

Oh, well. It might explain why I have a constant feeling of deja-vu.
 
  • #88
With the no boundary proposal, time acts literally like another spatial dimension. Hence past present and future exist as one 4 dimensional unchanging universe.

Unfortunately, I don't see how this could ever be tested, and the best we can hope for is proof about the size of space, not time.
 
  • #89
Originally posted by Eh
With the no boundary proposal, time acts literally like another spatial dimension. Hence past present and future exist as one 4 dimensional unchanging universe.

Unfortunately, I don't see how this could ever be tested, and the best we can hope for is proof about the size of space, not time.

I know this is a propoasal (like the no-boundary proposal) from Stephen Hawking, which also introduces the imaginary time concept.
It was a way of solving the singuality at the big bang.

But not everyone is agreeing on this proposal.
I think the theory of eternal inflation, which makes verifyable predictions of the observable universe and which fixes some of the problems in current Big bang theory, had more merits to go for.
Also it does not require the universe to have a beginning.
 
  • #90
It's only a proposal, but indeed avoids the problems of infinity. While inflation may make some predictions, it is not incompatible with the no boundary proposal. They both work.

But I'm not sure eternal inflation makes many predictions to stand out against the countless other inflation models. But I guess one prediction for an eternal inflationary universe is that space must be infinite. If WMAP finds conclusive evidence the universe is finite, that model will be dead. So in that sense, an infinitely old universe could be falsified within the year. Time will tell.
 
  • #91
Originally posted by Eh
It's only a proposal, but indeed avoids the problems of infinity. While inflation may make some predictions, it is not incompatible with the no boundary proposal. They both work.

But I'm not sure eternal inflation makes many predictions to stand out against the countless other inflation models. But I guess one prediction for an eternal inflationary universe is that space must be infinite. If WMAP finds conclusive evidence the universe is finite, that model will be dead. So in that sense, an infinitely old universe could be falsified within the year. Time will tell.

I would not know. I guess that in eternal inflation, time and space are infinite, but the spacetime bubble that comes out of a certain inflating region, is finite in size.
We can only know about the size of our own spacetime bubble.
 
  • #92
The problem lies in the fact of the hyperbolic shape. A 3 dimensional hyperbolic closed space simply cannot be embeded by 3D space. You would need at least 4 spatial dimensions in order for there to be more universe outside our visible space-time. I don't know what changes would be required to work with an extra dimensional inflation model.
 
  • #93
Originally posted by wuliheron
One of the philosophical implications of an eternal inflationary universe is that it is paradoxical and infinity not being a number is one of the reasons why.
You're just semi-correct. An eternal inflationary-universe is not logically possible. There's no paradox about it (since it's not a mystery).
... If anything has been inflating for eternity, and there is still space outside of itself in order to maintain the inflation, then that thing has to be a finite entity. Therefore, its inflationary-time is definitely finite.
A finite object cannot inflate for an eternity - it needs an origin of time for the process to begin. And an infinite object has no rational meaning (therefore, as it does not exist, it cannot inflate).
 
  • #94
You're just semi-correct. An eternal inflationary-universe is not logically possible. There's no paradox about it (since it's not a mystery).

Au Contre, it is infinitely mysteries. For example, because it has no beginning or end, for all I know every instant is somehow both a beginning and an end. Because it has no limit, for all I know eternity itself is also somehow finite. Logically and conceptually it makes no sense in these respects and is as magical an event as I can conceive of. No different from conceiving of the universe just suddenly appearing out of nowhere and nothing. Both inspire awe and it is perhaps this emotional connection above all that is our most accurate way of conceiving eternity.
 
  • #95
Originally posted by wuliheron
Au Contre, it is infinitely mysteries. For example, because it has no beginning or end, for all I know every instant is somehow both a beginning and an end.
I was trying to explain why an eternal inflationary-universe was not a viable possibility. I.e.; I was trying to show why time/change/motion has a beginning.
Because it has no limit, for all I know eternity itself is also somehow finite.
It is impossible that a finite entity should have no limits to its physical parameters of existence. That would make it an infinite physical-entity.
Logically and conceptually it makes no sense in these respects
If we are to apply reason to physical manifestation, then there are plenty of decisive conclusions to be gleaned. Like I said - in this respect, there is no mystery.
 
  • #96
Originally posted by Lifegazer
I was trying to explain why an eternal inflationary-universe was not a viable possibility. I.e.; I was trying to show why time/change/motion has a beginning.

Of course you can show that, but don't forget you can also and equally show that the opposite is true also: that time can't have a beginning. (see thread: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=958").
Don't forget about that! i tried to bring that fact into your mind many times.

It is impossible that a finite entity should have no limits to its physical parameters of existence. That would make it an infinite physical-entity.

Not true. For instance the surface of the Earth has a finite size, but it is not limited. Nowhere you fall off the earth.

If we are to apply reason to physical manifestation, then there are plenty of decisive conclusions to be gleaned. Like I said - in this respect, there is no mystery.

Except for the mysteries you introduce yourself, when coming up with the concept of a "beginning of time, space, matter, motion", etc. which enables you to come up with this deity thing again..
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #97
Originally posted by Lifegazer
You're just semi-correct. An eternal inflationary-universe is not logically possible. There's no paradox about it (since it's not a mystery).
... If anything has been inflating for eternity, and there is still space outside of itself in order to maintain the inflation, then that thing has to be a finite entity. Therefore, its inflationary-time is definitely finite.
A finite object cannot inflate for an eternity - it needs an origin of time for the process to begin. And an infinite object has no rational meaning (therefore, as it does not exist, it cannot inflate).

You're dead wrong here. The eternal inflation paradigm says that the current universe comes out of an inflated region of space which was finite in size, but which is part of a larger universe, that is infinite in size and has infinite history.
The finite object you refer to (the space-time bubble we call "our universe") has a definite begin, but that is not a begin of time as such. The eternal inflation paradigm states that the inflationary universe reproduces itself, so it came out of a previously inflating spacetime-bubble, and this process can go on in all eternity.
 
  • #98
Originally posted by Lifegazer
I was trying to explain why an eternal inflationary-universe was not a viable possibility. I.e.; I was trying to show why time/change/motion has a beginning.

It is impossible that a finite entity should have no limits to its physical parameters of existence. That would make it an infinite physical-entity.

If we are to apply reason to physical manifestation, then there are plenty of decisive conclusions to be gleaned. Like I said - in this respect, there is no mystery.

This is paraconsistent logic which is also applicable to Quantum Mechanics and any number of paradoxes from which useful and decisive conclusions can be drawn. The difference is, Quantum Mechanics is an applied reality while this is pure speculation. I could literally (?) speculate endlessly about eternity and infinity without finding a single useful bit of information. Thus it has no advantage over any other possible answer.
 
  • #99
Originally posted by heusdens
Of course you can show that, but don't forget you can also and equally show that the opposite is true also: that time can't have a beginning. (see thread: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=958").
Don't forget about that! i tried to bring that fact into your mind many times.
Yes; and now you have brought that to my attention, I find your reasoning to be corrupt (not in an immoral sense). I would also advise people to read that thread. They'll discover a few facts:-
1. You advocate that infinite-time is illogical. In fact, your first sentence here is an acknowledgment of this fact.
2. You have no reasonable disproof of a finite causality-chain. The reader should be aware that you (and Tom) just refuse to accept such a conclusion because you both realize that the conclusion infers the existence of 'God'.
3. Your decision to accept '1' is forced upon you by your absolute reluctance to accept the existence of 'God.
4. Your decision to accept '1' is a decision to accept an illogical premise.
5. Your refusal to accept a finite causality-chain is therefore a decision founded upon bias or incredulity. It is not a decision which reflects a reasoned analysis of the concepts involved.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #100
Originally posted by Lifegazer
Yes; and now you have brought that to my attention, I find your reasoning to be corrupt (not in an immoral sense). I would also advise people to read that thread. They'll discover a few facts:-
1. You advocate that infinite-time is illogical. In fact, your first sentence here is an acknowledgment of this fact.
2. You have no reasonable disproof of a finite causality-chain. The reader should be aware that you (and Tom) just refuse to accept such a conclusion because you both realize that the conclusion infers the existence of 'God'.
3. Your decision to accept '1' is forced upon you by your absolute reluctance to accept the existence of 'God.
4. Your decision to accept '1' is a decision to accept an illogical premise.
5. Your refusal to accept a finite causality-chain is therefore a decision founded upon bias or incredulity. It is not a decision which reflects a reasoned analysis of the concepts involved.

What is corrupt in my reasoning?

The reasoning is as follows. Both the finiteness (beginning) of time and the infiniteness of time are provable to be absurd, and refusing one, means to accept the other. Ultimately, however, the issue is contradictionary, and remeans so. Cause any attempt to remove the contradiction, creates even more absurd or profound contradictions.

Do you accept that?


Dialectical-materialism incorporates that in their central premises, and so the use of dialectical reasoning (dialectical reasoning is about contradictions) is a part of the very reasoning itself.

We can not escape from that situation.

The arbitrary introduction of a Deity does in total not remove the inherent contradiction, but creates an absurdity in it's own terms.
Because of that, such an artificial addition to reality, is refused.


Some coments:

1. I did not state that infinite time is illogical. I would state quite the opposite that it follows normal reasoning. The only thing that can be said about the infiniteness of time, is that the concept of inifinity isself is a contradictionary term in it's own. The attempt to remove this contradiction, is to remove infinity, which leaves us with the equal, or even more absurd proposition of having time 'started'. What was before that time? A mere nothingness? An unchanging-existence? Where did the first change come from?

2. The disproof of finite-causality, or better stated the proof that such can not be the case, is because it would require time, matter, motion and space to have begun at some 'time' (a time in which in fact, there was no time!). This is inacceptable. There is no physical evidence that such a thing can happen. On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence that matter can only exist in eternal, neverlasting motion, as this is seen to be the case.

3. The infinitness of time can be well understood and is based on theorems, which we base on material knowledge. Matter does not appear out of nothing. Matter only is in a constant and endless proces of transforming, changing, moving. This can not be said to have begun or end, and therefore the material world, the universe, is unfolding endlessly without begin or end.

4. We have no reason to assume that things in the past or the future work differently as they do now. If one assumes the past or the future the physical laws were different, it is up to that person assuming that to give us proof of that.

5. In part you already accepted the idea that there must be always something, and that at no point in time there can be 'nothing'. This is a reasonable proposition to conclude that therefore an existing material universe, in whatever material form or shape, must have been existing at all time, that is in all of eternity, endlesly.

6. Even when we are stubborn, and refuse the more obvious conclusions, which I have drawn here, and postulate the existence of some 'unknown/unknowable' Deity, what would it help? Is a Deity necessary to 'create' a universe? To create the universe in this manner of speaking would imply that before (before the universe existed, before time [whatever that can mean]) it (the unvierse)did not exist.
What existed before, or what was the state of the world before that? The mere nothing, or "notingness"? That can't be the case for logical reasons, and secondly, then also this Deity which was called for help, did not exist. So, that in fact means that a pre-existing Deity transforms into the world, and becomes the world. In fact it denotes a continuous transformation, not an act of 'creation' (as in 'creation ex nihilo'). But this ain't very helpfull, because instead of explaining the world, and where it comes from, it necessitates us to explain where this Deity came from. Same problems here as for the world itself.

7. So, this attempt doesn't work neither, for obvious reasons. What else might work then? Well, if neither the obvious (an endless, eternal and infinite existence) nor a pre-existing Deity might help, the only other option is that of a beginning of time, which started out of an absolute nothing. Before time, there was nothing. This implies us to believe that motion arises out of no motion, matter out of nothing, and time and space popup all by themselves. It implies us to accept that the "nothingness" is a real existing state of the world, which happens to have existed before the world started to exist. And that "out of nothing" (although it is a state which can not imply any form of change), all of a sudden everything pops out.

Excuse me, Mr Lifegazer, but such a thing I simply refuse to believe.
 
Last edited:
  • #101
Originally posted by wuliheron
I will challange such nonsense in the name of mathematics any time I please.

No you wont. There have been enough locked threads because of other members (not naming names) who keep trying to introduce their personal belief to all topics even remotely related to it. It doesn't matter that you think infinity is irrational. I think that Nietzsche's philosophy of all events (in the past) repeating themselves (in the future) is irrational and foolish. That doesn't mean that I'm allowed to insult/mock anyone who tries to make application of that philosophy. Philosophy allows for people to believe differently, and to speculate as to what would occur, if the premise were true.

As I already said Dorathy, if you want to stay in OZ that is your affair. This is a physics philosophy bulletin board, not the land of Oz where anything is possible. One of the philosophical implications of an eternal inflationary universe is that it is paradoxical and infinity not being a number is one of the reasons why.

Yes, this is a philosophy bulletin board. Not a bulletin board dedicated to sarcasm and arrogant patronization.
 
  • #102
Originally posted by heusdens
What is corrupt in my reasoning?

The reasoning is as follows. ~**Both** the finiteness (beginning) of time and the infiniteness of time are provable to be absurd~
That's the point: the finiteness of time is not absurd - until you then realize that 'God' is infered. And you reject 'God' because it just feels absurd.
1. I did not state that infinite time is illogical. I would state quite the opposite that it follows normal reasoning.
You've stated it on several occaisions. Most notably, in the first quote of this post. I've highlighted it, for effect.
 
  • #103
Originally posted by Lifegazer
That's the point: the finiteness of time is not absurd - until you then realize that 'God' is infered. And you reject 'God' because it just feels absurd.

You've stated it on several occaisions. Most notably, in the first quote of this post. I've highlighted it, for effect.

We have discussed this issue lenghty in the topic about Philosophy of Nature. Time and Space. It was about Kant's both argument pro- and contra- a finite time. Both were provable, which leads to the absurd situation of a contradiction, cause both can be proven.

Ok, so let us assume for a moment, that we have no way around this, and then we pretend to arbitrary adapt one of the conclusions, and go for finite time. Then time had a beginning, and the universe has an 'absolute' cause, namely God. But that would infer either:
1- That we add to the beginning finite causal chain another infinite causal chain, namely God.
2- Or we state that no cause can be given, and we have to believe that everything came from nothing literally!

It can be shown that case 1 is just the other choise we could have made (the infinity of time), and that 2 is an absolute absurdity, which therefore we refuse.

As explained in another thread the causality argument comes not in the picture when used in a proper way, and does not conflict with an infinite time. Only then namely causality is universally applied, and every event within the universe is based on cause-and-effect relationship. This however - and that is where the application of cuasuality goes wrong - is not applicable to the universe AS A WHOLE, as explained in the other thread. THAT would imply namely to KILL causality. If the universe AS A WHOLE would have had a cause, then causality can not be at the same time be established for every event IN the universe. Your reasoning goes wrong there in the same way as to imply that since all members of the football team have parents, therefore the football team must have a parent. For obvious reasons, that does not have to be the case.

The alternative of infinite time is therefore acceptable, and the only remaining contradiction is that of infinity itself. All attempts to remove the contradiction from infinity, remove in effect infinity itself, and thereby introducing new and more profound contradictions, and in fact, absurd contradictions.
 
Last edited:
  • #104
Originally posted by Mentat
Yes, this is a philosophy bulletin board. Not a bulletin board dedicated to sarcasm and arrogant patronization. [/B]

The famous western philosopher of modern science, Descartes, was famous for his sarcasm. The land of Oz contains all types of strange characters, including such as yourself who endlessly ask the same questions over and over, demand proof that Santa doesn't exist, make personal slams, and then start calling the kettle black.
 
  • #105
Originally posted by wuliheron
The famous western philosopher of modern science, Descartes, was famous for his sarcasm. The land of Oz contains all types of strange characters, including such as yourself who endlessly ask the same questions over and over, demand proof that Santa doesn't exist, make personal slams, and then start calling the kettle black.

You can't even see how petty the above kind of posting is, can you?

Oh well, let's stop intruding on the thread. If you have something to say to me, personally, just PM me.
 

Similar threads

I Did cosmic inflation happen everywhere in the Universe?
3
Replies
80
Views
9K
I Some questions about Cosmic Inflation
Replies
4
Views
2K
I ....Alternatives to Inflation in Primordial Power Spectrum
Replies
1
Views
2K
Is Inflation Eternal Into the Past?
Replies
4
Views
2K
I Question about "the big bang happened everywhere at once"
Replies
14
Views
2K
What is the Rationale Behind Eternal Inflation?
Replies
8
Views
3K
Timing of the big bounce in eternal inflation
Replies
4
Views
3K
Cosmic inflation and singularity
Replies
4
Views
3K
Can Inflation Avoid Selfreproduction?
Replies
5
Views
2K
Inflation and Monopoles: Exploring the Mysteries of Cosmic Expansion
2
Replies
43
Views
5K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top