• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

We live in a infinite universe

baron said:
An infinite universe has infinite everything, by definition. Infinite love, infinite hate, infinite soup, infinite dog turds.
Click to expand...

Even infinite love for dog turd soup. I doubt OP would like a nice steaming bowl of dog turd soup though.
 
Baron, look. It's quite simple:

- I commented on the OP's claims (admittedly with non-technical terms).
- You didn't know what I was talking about and asked me to provide support for these comments.
- I provided a link.
- You didn't read it.

So how do you know if the link supports what I said or not? Forget the poor wording on my part. Read the link. Hawking discusses the possible mechanic through which the universe could have come into existence, which also happens to answer the "something from nothing" claim.

Or don't read it, but don't pretend like you know what it says.
 
baron said:
An infinite universe has infinite everything, by definition. Infinite love, infinite hate, infinite soup, infinite dog turds.
Click to expand...

Nonsense!

There are infinitely many natural numbers, but only one even prime.

An infinite universe could, similarly, have a finite number of dog turds. There is not a damned thing contradictory in this.
 
phiwum said:
Nonsense!

There are infinitely many natural numbers, but only one even prime.

An infinite universe could, similarly, have a finite number of dog turds. There is not a damned thing contradictory in this.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Plus the OP seems to assume that an infinite universe somehow has various regions with different physical laws.

Hence why I'm buliding a Sith temple.
 
phiwum said:
Nonsense!

There are infinitely many natural numbers, but only one even prime.

An infinite universe could, similarly, have a finite number of dog turds. There is not a damned thing contradictory in this.
Click to expand...

Yes there is. It's a fundamentally flawed argument. Why did you even give the example of an 'even prime'? Why not say the number one, or the number 29, or the colour orange or this specific keyboard I am typing on right at this moment? Because all these things are implicitly numerically bounded by their own definitions and clearly I was not referring to such things. Where something has no implicit restrictions then it will be present in infinite numbers in an infinite universe. That's not speculation, it's mathematical fact; any possibility, no matter how small, translates to an infinite number of actualities in an infinite universe. So not only would you have infinite dog turds and infinite soup, you would also have an infinite number of planets identical to the Earth except that a tossed coin will never turn up heads, and an infinite number of users with the name phiwum on forums identical to this making incorrect assumptions about the implications of infinity.
 
Argumemnon said:
Baron, look. It's quite simple:

- I commented on the OP's claims (admittedly with non-technical terms).
- You didn't know what I was talking about and asked me to provide support for these comments.
- I provided a link.
- You didn't read it.

So how do you know if the link supports what I said or not? Forget the poor wording on my part. Read the link. Hawking discusses the possible mechanic through which the universe could have come into existence, which also happens to answer the "something from nothing" claim.

Or don't read it, but don't pretend like you know what it says.
Click to expand...

I read it long before you posted the link. What I'm waiting for is for you to explain which parts prove your point and disprove mine, and how.
 
baron said:
I read it long before you posted the link. What I'm waiting for is for you to explain which parts prove your point and disprove mine, and how.
Click to expand...

Twice now I have quoted the relevant section. Hawkings talks about possible ways by which the universe may have come into being, which implies an underlying quantum "reality", for lack of a better word, which is what I was refering to when I talked about a "substrate". It also is not nothing. Could you comment on that, specifically?
 
Argumemnon said:
Twice now I have quoted the relevant section. Hawkings talks about possible ways by which the universe may have come into being, which implies an underlying quantum "reality", for lack of a better word, which is what I was refering to when I talked about a "substrate". It also is not nothing. Could you comment on that, specifically?
Click to expand...

Hawking's quote is simply a summary of one hypothesis amongst many, and makes no claims to what the universe actually arose from in the first place (for universe in this case read multiverse, as it's a question of terminology if you assume more than one).

Hawking has explicitly stated, in the quote I provided, that he does not discount the idea of something appearing from nothing, and he took great pains to point out that he didn't mean 'nothing' as energy of the vacuum, or dark energy, or just a tiny bit of stuff hovering in the void, he meant absolutely nothing whatsoever.

So I genuinely have no idea how your quote even addressed my claim (which you deny) that something can come from nothing, let alone invalidate it.
 
baron said:
Hawking's quote is simply a summary of one hypothesis amongst many, and makes no claims to what the universe actually arose from in the first place (for universe in this case read multiverse, as it's a question of terminology if you assume more than one).

Hawking has explicitly stated, in the quote I provided, that he does not discount the idea of something appearing from nothing, and he took great pains to point out that he didn't mean 'nothing' as energy of the vacuum, or dark energy, or just a tiny bit of stuff hovering in the void, he meant absolutely nothing whatsoever.

So I genuinely have no idea how your quote even addressed my claim (which you deny) that something can come from nothing, let alone invalidate it.
Click to expand...
Using common sense, the universe came from nothing.
 
JayUtah said:
That is not a conclusion that can be drawn on the basis of common sense. Do you have any other evidence?
Click to expand...
Yes the universe came from nothing. It's simple common sense. It's impossible for something to always have existed.
 
baron said:
Hawking's quote is simply a summary of one hypothesis amongst many, and makes no claims to what the universe actually arose from in the first place
Click to expand...

The idea is that the most probable histories of the universe would be like the surfaces of the bubbles. Many small bubbles would appear, and then disappear again. These would correspond to mini universes that would expand but would collapse again while still of microscopic size. They are possible alternative universes but they are not of much interest since they do not last long enough to develop galaxies and stars, let alone intelligent life. A few of the little bubbles, however, grow to a certain size at which they are safe from recollapse. They will continue to expand at an ever increasing rate, and will form the bubbles we see. They will correspond to universes that would start off expanding at an ever increasing rate. This is called inflation, like the way prices go up every year.

He specifically likens the universe to a bubble _on another bubble_. How can you not see this as clearly saying that the universe exists within another concept?

Hawking has explicitly stated, in the quote I provided, that he does not discount the idea of something appearing from nothing
Click to expand...

Yeah he probably also doesn't discount the idea of our universe being in a lab from another universe, but that's irrelevant.
 
Last edited:
slipknot0129 said:
It's impossible for something to always have existed.
Click to expand...

And you know this how?

Think about it: if there's no time, what is there but "always"? "Time" is a feature of our universe, like "space". So whatever underlying reality exists to our universe is pretty much necessarily timeless (i.e. eternal).
 
Argumemnon said:
And you know this how?

Think about it: if there's no time, what is there but "always"? "Time" is a feature of our universe, like "space". So whatever underlying reality exists to our universe is pretty much necessarily timeless (i.e. eternal).
Click to expand...
Our universe isn't eternal. It had a start. It came from nothing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom