Eternal Inflation and it's Philospohical implications

[Mentat]

Originally posted by heusdens
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.

Heusdens, you missed one possible explanation. Big Bang theory coupled with String theory. It's my favorite because it doesn't require the use of the word "nothingness", which I abhor, and which has no real meaning anyway.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Mentat
Heusdens, you missed one possible explanation. Big Bang theory coupled with String theory. It's my favorite because it doesn't require the use of the word "nothingness", which I abhor, and which has no real meaning anyway.

Yeah, it is called "brane cosmology". I have heard about it, and read about it.

But in what way is that a "different" alternative?

All I know about the ekpyrotic model is that it states or assumes an infinite space and time frame.

Btw. I do not favour this model, nor the Turok-Hawking Instanton "pea", because of several reasons.
Brane and string cosmology have problems inthemselves, in that they are only theory, and are not yet established on empical evidence, and apart from that don't come with the right predictions on the universe we observe.

See for instante the critique of Andrei Linde on both these models.
Type "Andrei Linde" in Google search and find the link to a lecture about eternal / open inflation in which he talks in detail about that, and his own model).

 

[wuliheron]

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.

Still being derogatory and attempting to tell me what to do. PM me yourself fool. Once again, stop handing out advice you aren't willing to take yourself. Get real, grow up.

 

[Eh]

Colliding branes produce the big bang: http://feynman.princeton.edu/~steinh/cyclintro/index.html

Time is infinite in that model, and each brane is infinite itself. It is still an infinite regress theory, and only the use of imaginary time gives us a real alternative.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Eh
Colliding branes produce the big bang: http://feynman.princeton.edu/~steinh/cyclintro/index.html

Time is infinite in that model, and each brane is infinite itself. It is still an infinite regress theory, and only the use of imaginary time gives us a real alternative.

Lookup the link I provided in my earlier post (lecture of Andrei Linde) and you might be confronted that this theory still suffers from major deficits (for example brane stability, which requires all kinds of fine tuning in the branes relative positions, etc.)

It is not very appealing to me, with lack of physcial evidence, to go for 1o-D models of matter in forms of strings, that occur at the Planck level, which lacks any direct experimental evidence (we would need colliders the size of the solar system to produce the necessary energies required there).

 

[Eh]

Well I'm not going to get into the technical aspects of the theories, since it's over my head. But apparently inflation also has many fined tuned conditions, and has many feeling the theory is very ad hoc.

But I agree that extra dimensional branes are unappealing. It seems less intellectually satisfying to require all kinds of unseen extra dimensions to explain our world than using the 3 of common experience. I must admit I am not a big fan of string theory for this reason (and the fact it's the biggest reductionist theory ever created). However, once you accept curved space as an explanation for gravity, the comfort of our familiar Eucliean world is shattered. Maybe years from now, the idea of extra dimensions won't seem such a stretch. Experimental evidence would certainly help.

 

[wuliheron]

and the fact it's the biggest reductionist theory ever created

According to everything I've ever read about String theory it most definitely is not a reductionist theory, but a holistic one. It is essentially an extension of Relativity which incorporates the Indeterminacy of QM, both of which are holistic theories.

 

[Eh]

I've heard proponents of string theory call it holistic as well. But I don't see it. It reduces everything in nature into working parts (vibrating strings) and may eventually cut up the metric tensor into little stringy bits. It may one day elegantly unify QM with GR (which it does not yet do, being background dependent) but it still smells of reductionism.

 

[wuliheron]

Well, yeah. Relativity itself is a holistic extension of reductionist Newtonian Mechanics so the resemblance to reductionist theories is understandable. Basically, its the geometric aspect that lends it towards such a view as you point out. However, like Relativity it still does not break down the spacetime continuum itself into discrete parts and is still reliant upon shaky definitions of just what exactly a dimension is.

For example, M-theory postulates that size is relative. To the best of my knowledge the theory would be utterly useless without such holistic assumptions.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Eh
I've heard proponents of string theory call it holistic as well. But I don't see it. It reduces everything in nature into working parts (vibrating strings) and may eventually cut up the metric tensor into little stringy bits. It may one day elegantly unify QM with GR (which it does not yet do, being background dependent) but it still smells of reductionism.

Well, actually, it's both reductionist and holistic, as Brian Greene points out in his book.

Also, it does unify QM and GR, because it doesn't allow anything to take place below the Planck length. Thus, it agrees with QM, that at such small sizes, "weirdness" would occur. But, it keeps space "smooth", as in GR, because nothing exists at the sizes required for such "weirdness". (This was an over-simplification, but it's basically the unification.)

 

[Eh]

Yes, Michio Kaku has made similar claims, but the justification is weak. The primary entity is the string, and the parts are the fundamental things in the universe. Contrast that to a theory like GR, where force=geometry. What is more holistic than a world of pure geometry? Supergravity for example, uses the super metric tensor to describe everything from quarks to the nuclear forces. No countless abritrary parts required.

And as I'm sure you've read before, since string theory is background dependent (the strings move in a background space-time) it cannot be a complete theory of quantum gravity.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Eh
Yes, Michio Kaku has made similar claims, but the justification is weak. The primary entity is the string, and the parts are the fundamental things in the universe. Contrast that to a theory like GR, where force=geometry. What is more holistic than a world of pure geometry? Supergravity for example, uses the super metric tensor to describe everything from quarks to the nuclear forces. No countless abritrary parts required.

And as I'm sure you've read before, since string theory is background dependent (the strings move in a background space-time) it cannot be a complete theory of quantum gravity.

Are you sure of that? Doesn't string theory allow for the quantized weirdness, of a quantum theory of gravity, at levels below a Planck Length - and just get rid of them by saying that there is nothing below this size?

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Mentat
Are you sure of that? Doesn't string theory allow for the quantized weirdness, of a quantum theory of gravity, at levels below a Planck Length - and just get rid of them by saying that there is nothing below this size?

No, that is not what string theory proposes at all. Below the Planck length everything emerges into a parallel universe or mirror world and it is this transition is what supposidly explains the action-at-distance of the forces. In fact, the theory proposes that distances and lengths are all relative.

What it most definitely does not eliminate is Indeterminacy, which is what Ed is really arguing about. He is claiming the theory is attempting to reduce Quantum Indeterminacy to a finite quantity. This is, of course, highly speculative. Exactly where the theory is leading even the most knowledgeable people on the subject are reluctant to speculate on and publically claim it most certainly will not resolve Quantum Indeterminacy.

Considering the consistent failures of people to resolve QM in the last century, I tend to take the side of experts when it comes to String theory.

 

[Eh]

Originally posted by Mentat
Are you sure of that? Doesn't string theory allow for the quantized weirdness, of a quantum theory of gravity, at levels below a Planck Length - and just get rid of them by saying that there is nothing below this size?

That's the gist of it. In string theory, there is nothing smaller than the Planck length, nor any parallel universes required to explain particle interactions. While quantum jitters still exist, the finite limit on the size prevents those jitters from making space-time a complete mess. But apparently when describing string interactions, it is done on a fixed backdrop of space-time. In other words, strings move about in a metric the same way a point particle would when describing other field interactions. String theorists know this, and it is hoped that a background free version of superstrings will emerge from M theory.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by wuliheron
No, that is not what string theory proposes at all. Below the Planck length everything emerges into a parallel universe or mirror world and it is this transition is what supposidly explains the action-at-distance of the forces. In fact, the theory proposes that distances and lengths are all relative.

What it most definitely does not eliminate is Indeterminacy, which is what Ed is really arguing about. He is claiming the theory is attempting to reduce Quantum Indeterminacy to a finite quantity. This is, of course, highly speculative. Exactly where the theory is leading even the most knowledgeable people on the subject are reluctant to speculate on and publically claim it most certainly will not resolve Quantum Indeterminacy.

Considering the consistent failures of people to resolve QM in the last century, I tend to take the side of experts when it comes to String theory.

When I said that it didn't allow for anything to be below a Plancks length, I meant that it things just started to get bigger (in the "mirror world") when they get that small. Doesn't that release physicists from the need to find out what happens below a Planck's length?

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Mentat
When I said that it didn't allow for anything to be below a Plancks length, I meant that it things just started to get bigger (in the "mirror world") when they get that small. Doesn't that release physicists from the need to find out what happens below a Planck's length?

Not at all. Their explanation must still fullfill two criteria, Occam's Razor and predictability. Either this explanation is the simplest one that explains what we observe and predicts phenomena nothing else can or it is not a physical theory.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Not at all. Their explanation must still fullfill two criteria, Occam's Razor and predictability. Either this explanation is the simplest one that explains what we observe and predicts phenomena nothing else can or it is not a physical theory.

Not all theories have to satisfy Occam's Razor, in order to be good. I could make something up like lifegazer's Mind hypothesis, and that would satisfy Occam's Razor much better than any scientific theories, but that doesn't mean that I (or lifegazer) would be correct.

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Mentat
Not all theories have to satisfy Occam's Razor, in order to be good. I could make something up like lifegazer's Mind hypothesis, and that would satisfy Occam's Razor much better than any scientific theories, but that doesn't mean that I (or lifegazer) would be correct.

A good theory by scientific standards has to be falsifiable, which LG's theory most certainly is not. If by some strange chance you invented a useful theory around his, the scientific world would still trim off all the meaningless stuff and reduce it to its bare bones.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by wuliheron
A good theory by scientific standards has to be falsifiable, which LG's theory most certainly is not. If by some strange chance you invented a useful theory around his, the scientific world would still trim off all the meaningless stuff and reduce it to its bare bones.

Falsification can not be the only standard, cause the theory itself lacks falsification.

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by heusdens
Falsification can not be the only standard, cause the theory itself lacks falsification.

Like I said, If it turned out to be useful they'd trim down to bare essentials and then try to falsify it. In the mean time, it might as well be a bad hollyweird screen play as far as science is concerned.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by wuliheron
A good theory by scientific standards has to be falsifiable, which LG's theory most certainly is not. If by some strange chance you invented a useful theory around his, the scientific world would still trim off all the meaningless stuff and reduce it to its bare bones.

How do we know that LG's hypothesis isn't falsifiable?

 

[Eh]

Because it was designed to be unfalsifiable. There is no finding from physics, biology, cosmology or any other science that could ever refute the mind hypothesis, because hey, those findings would simply have been a result of the mind at work. See some of the past threads with LG about that.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Eh
Because it was designed to be unfalsifiable. There is no finding from physics, biology, cosmology or any other science that could ever refute the mind hypothesis, because hey, those findings would simply have been a result of the mind at work. See some of the past threads with LG about that.

Oh *smacks self on head (head starting to hurt, after such numerous mistakes)*, I thought of that right after I posted before. I'm sorry. Yes, I guess it is empirically unfalsifiable (much like the religious idea of God's existence), however it seems to be falsifiable by reason.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Eh
Because it was designed to be unfalsifiable. There is no finding from physics, biology, cosmology or any other science that could ever refute the mind hypothesis, because hey, those findings would simply have been a result of the mind at work. See some of the past threads with LG about that.

In general one can say, that anything that is not existing, has lack of falsification. If something doesn't exist, doesn't mean that one can proof that it doesn't exist. The inability to disproof something does not mean that it can constitute proof.

 

[Eh]

Correct, absence of evidence does mean evidence of absence. But what it does is make such a hypothesis completely useless. Since it can never be verified, so long as it is logically consistant we can never know if it is correct. That is the problem with ideas such as the mind hypothesis, as whether or not the idea is right will have no effect on our attempts to understand how the world works.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Eh
Correct, absence of evidence does mean evidence of absence. But what it does is make such a hypothesis completely useless. Since it can never be verified, so long as it is logically consistant we can never know if it is correct. That is the problem with ideas such as the mind hypothesis, as whether or not the idea is right will have no effect on our attempts to understand how the world works.

Right. The hypothesis asks us to throw away all of our knowledge, and start again, based on nothing more as an assumption. The idea can never be prooved. It can only be proved there is absolutely no evidence for it. So we should just drop the idea all together.

 

[Eh]

Just try explaining it to LG.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Eh
Just try explaining it to LG.

My reply to all of this chat about my argument can be found within my current thread. Read my last post to heusdens, made today.
It begins: ""I can promise the readers that not one single argument can be formulated, using logic, to show that an external reality exists."
Furthermore, my argument is founded upon an absolute fact about existence: we all experience existence via inner sensation. Anybody who thinks this is an 'assertion', is just kidding themselves. But they aren't kidding the sincere debaters within this forum.
And finally; my response to this: "Right. The hypothesis asks us to throw away all of our knowledge, and start again.", is that this statement is absolute nonsense. Everything we know has its own value. I ask the readers to discard of no knowledge and start again. I ask the readers to discard of their beliefs pertaining to materialistic philosophy. Science is not killed by my philosophy. Materialism is.

Any response to this post is welcomed within my thread. I don't want to spoil the original subject-matter. But my response here was justified, given the recent chat. Thanks.

 

[FZ+]

Let's repeat that again. You are assuming that the absence of proof for external reality is proof of absence. This is fundamentally incorrect. To work on that assumption is to go beyond the limits to which reason is applicable. So, your post cannot represent a proof, but is a belief in itself.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
My reply to all of this chat about my argument can be found within my current thread. Read my last post to heusdens, made today.
It begins: ""I can promise the readers that not one single argument can be formulated, using logic, to show that an external reality exists."
Furthermore, my argument is founded upon an absolute fact about existence: we all experience existence via inner sensation. Anybody who thinks this is an 'assertion', is just kidding themselves. But they aren't kidding the sincere debaters within this forum.
And finally; my response to this: "Right. The hypothesis asks us to throw away all of our knowledge, and start again.", is that this statement is absolute nonsense. Everything we know has its own value. I ask the readers to discard of no knowledge and start again. I ask the readers to discard of their beliefs pertaining to materialistic philosophy. Science is not killed by my philosophy. Materialism is.

Any response to this post is welcomed within my thread. I don't want to spoil the original subject-matter. But my response here was justified, given the recent chat. Thanks.

You are wrong here. You say that no argument can be used to prove an external reality. There are good few points made that contradict your idea, in the Hudles to the Mind hypothesis thread - which is why, I suspect, you stopped posting on that thread - and you have yet to present any reason for us to abandon belief in an external reality.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
My reply to all of this chat about my argument can be found within my current thread. Read my last post to heusdens, made today.
It begins: ""I can promise the readers that not one single argument can be formulated, using logic, to show that an external reality exists."
Furthermore, my argument is founded upon an absolute fact about existence: we all experience existence via inner sensation. Anybody who thinks this is an 'assertion', is just kidding themselves. But they aren't kidding the sincere debaters within this forum.
And finally; my response to this: "Right. The hypothesis asks us to throw away all of our knowledge, and start again.", is that this statement is absolute nonsense. Everything we know has its own value. I ask the readers to discard of no knowledge and start again. I ask the readers to discard of their beliefs pertaining to materialistic philosophy. Science is not killed by my philosophy. Materialism is.

Any response to this post is welcomed within my thread. I don't want to spoil the original subject-matter. But my response here was justified, given the recent chat. Thanks.

Materialism is not founded on belief. the very essence of materialism is that it is effectively grounded on scientific knowledge of the world. There is only one possibility: either accept science or belief in god (religion). That is what this whole discussion is all about. One cannot establish science without materialism.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by heusdens
Materialism is not founded on belief. the very essence of materialism is that it is effectively grounded on scientific knowledge of the world. There is only one possibility: either accept science or belief in god (religion). That is what this whole discussion is all about. One cannot establish science without materialism.

You don't have to sweat-it anymore. They locked my thread.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
You don't have to sweat-it anymore. They locked my thread.

It was obviously leading to nowhere. I hope you don't mind that scientific minded people don't see any reason to leave materialism and replace it with belief in God.

 

[M. Gaspar]

Lifegazer...

What was the title of the thread?

And what do you mean "they locked it"?

Tell me what your point was in 20 words or less. Thanks.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
What was the title of the thread?

"An argument for the existence of God?"

And what do you mean "they locked it"?

They put a lock on the thread so nobody could post anything else.

Tell me what your point was in 20 words or less. Thanks.

Existence is God.