Thursday, September 10, 2009

Why Can’t It Be Infinite? Conclusion

Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity predicted that the universe cannot be infinite. Along with many other atheist scientists, Einstein found this discovery “Irritating.” To avoid the Creator God implication of a universe with a beginning, Einstein and others like him wanted the universe to be self-existent and not contingent on an external cause. In fact, so disturbing was this finding that Einstein himself fudged his findings to “create” a universe without a beginning. In 1919 another scientist found Einstein’s “error” and the theory of General Relativity was in the books. Even this scientist, atheist Arthur Eddington stated, “Philosophically, the notion of a beginning of the present order of nature is repugnant to me . . . I should like to find a genuine loophole.”
Physicist Philip Morrison - “I find it hard to accept the Big Bang theory. I would like to reject it.”

Others since have vainly attempted to rule out Big Bang cosmology. Their efforts have come to a screeching halt due to the Borde-Guth-Vilinkin Theorem. This proves, far beyond a reasonable doubt, that any expanding universe, be it theoretical like the ones mentioned in Part V, or real (like ours) must have a definitive space / time boundary, a point of beginning, a singularity, a point of Creation.

Because of clear scientific evidence, we know that:
. It is physically impossible to have an Actual Infinite Series of Things or Events or even moments of Time preceding our today. Nor can we have an Actual Infinite Collection by adding Things or Events or moments of Time one to another to another in order to reach today. This is why we can say with confidence that matter / universe CANNOT be infinite and that they HAVEN’T always existed.

Imagine units of time as individual books filling a book shelf that stretches infinitely into the past. You could imagine an infinitely long street or an infinitely long rope or whatever, but for this example I’ll use a shelf of books. While mathematics is able to deal with abstract or theoretical or conceptual or potential infinities, and while our imagination can create an imaginary shelf of books stretching infinitely into the past, sort of, reality holds no such possibility for us.

Time is not imaginary.
Time is not abstract or theoretical or conceptual.
Time is real.
Time is measured in real units.

In a scenario like this, with the shelf of books (units of time) stretching infinitely into the past you could never actually arrive at the first book. It is impossible to travel through infinite time to reach a starting point from which you could begin your journey to the last book on the shelf or to what we call today. If in order to reach the last book (what we call today), you’d have to have the second to last book, or yesterday. And if, in order to have the second to last book you had to have the third to last book, and in order to have the third to last book you had to have the fourth to last book and so on and so on, you could never reach today because you could never reach the “first” day (book) that made possible the second day which made possible the third day . . .. Since the past is made up of units of real time, in the case of a beginningless past we would have had to pass through or travel through an infinite number of units of time in order to reach today and that is physically impossible. To reach today, we have to have had a starting point, a push point, a point of beginning, a point of first cause. If the past were actually infinite, we could never reach today because the past would simply extend infinitely into the past.

Neither can we, as some have tried to do, arbitrarily pick a set or group or point in real time and begin counting from there. Of course you can do that, but it proves nothing regarding the beginning of the universe.

The fact is, we have reached today so we can know not only that the universe had a beginning, but that time itself had a beginning. Just as a bookshelf stretching infinitely into the past with no beginning would prohibit our reaching the last book on the shelf, neither can there be an infinite regress of CAUSES of the universe, i.e., previous universes. That would also prohibit reaching today’s universe.

. A beginningless Series or Collection of Things or Events in time entails, not a potential but an actual infinite number of Things or Events or moments in Time.

. As we’ve just seen, a beginningless Series of Things or Events or moments in Time that leads to today cannot exist.

. Therefore, in order to reach today, time and the universe had to have a beginning; they had to have a starting point.

. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, proves the universe had a starting point and that matter is not infinite or eternal.

. Expansion of the universe, proves the universe had starting point and that matter is not infinite or eternal.

. Background Cosmic Radiation, proves the universe had a starting point and that matter is not infinite or eternal.

. Cosmic Seeds, proves the universe had a starting point and that matter is not infinite or eternal, and

. The fact that the physical infinite does not exist proves the universe had a starting point and that matter is not infinite or eternal.

All of these lines of evidence emphatically and conclusively point to a definitive space / time boundary, a Big Bang Creation Event.

The question that the atheist needs to honestly ask h/herself is, why won’t I follow the evidence, as a true follower of science would, and accept that the universe, our universe had a beginning, a Singularity, a Big Bang Creation Event? Is it because I’m being forced to accept the only logical and rational conclusion?

. The universe had a beginning

. The beginning of the universe had to have a Cause

. The Cause had to exist external to and prior to space, time and matter.

. Existing outside of time, the Cause is infinite or Eternal,

. Existing outside of matter (which is finite), the Cause is immaterial or Spiritual,

. Existing as the Cause of time and energy, space, matter and the laws of physics, the Cause is immeasurably more powerful than the mathematically precise universe and its exquisitely Finely Tuned constants and quantities.

. The Cause cannot be “scientific” because neither matter nor the laws of physics (i.e., the laws that science has observed and identified), existed prior to the Singularity.

. Therefore the Cause of the beginning of the universe is not scientific but Personal.

. The transcendent Cause of the universe is therefore on the order of a Mind.

. That Cause is omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent.

. That Cause, is what is normally described as The Greatest Conceivable Being or Creator God.

14 comments:

PersonalFailure said...

Time is not imaginary.
Time is not abstract or theoretical or conceptual.
Time is real.
Time is measured in real units.


I know a number of physicists who would disagree with you, and when it comes to questions of physics, I'll stick with them. Unless you've studied physics at the doctoral level?

Makarios said...

No, I haven't, but these comments come from those who have.

salvage said...

Well those commentators are wrong.

Makarios said...

So you actually live on B Theory of time salvage? Is that what you're telling me?

salvage said...

I'm telling you that anyone who declares they understand time either in the abstract or the literal to the point that they can make such declarations is ignorant, a liar or mad.

I'd need them to step outside a TARDIS before I'd give them a listen.

Makarios said...

When you say, "Well those commentators are wrong." it sounds as though you're implying that you understand time and they do not.

salvage said...

I understand it enough to understand that no one understands it enough to make such declarations.

Time is something we invented to measure something we don't really understand to the point that it may not literally exist.

Makarios said...

So you don’t think that events happen sequentially?

Rabhimself said...

Hmm, this one is interestin. Although i am convinced makarios does nothing more than parrot things he reads on the internet and gives the impression he is an expert, it is interesting to see that salvage (who's posts as a whole i find extremely entertaining on the grounds of humiliating the concept of a god, and any claims made by religious zombies like makarios) has the opinion that -

"Time is something we invented to measure something we don't really understand to the point that it may not literally exist."

Now, i've heard the whole 'does time exist' debate before, and i find the notion that it doesn't to be personally incomprehensible.

The units by which we measure time are man-made, but surely you are not of the opinion that time does not exist.

If so, please try and explain why. I do not think you are wrong, i just find it hard to grasp if so.

Makarios, please do not think for a second i am defending you.

That is all.

salvage said...

>The units by which we measure time are man-made, but surely you are not of the opinion that time does not exist.

I was until I read this, it left me with questions and a headache:

Efforts to understand time below the Planck scale have led to an exceedingly strange juncture in physics. The problem, in brief, is that time may not exist at the most fundamental level of physical reality. If so, then what is time? And why is it so obviously and tyrannically omnipresent in our own experience? “The meaning of time has become terribly problematic in contemporary physics,” says Simon Saunders, a philosopher of physics at the University of Oxford. “The situation is so uncomfortable that by far the best thing to do is declare oneself an agnostic.”

Rabhimself said...

I've seen that before, and if i remember correctly from my physical chemistry modules, anything under 10^-43 seconds lacks any physical meaning.

Still, i find it hard to believe that time does not exist. We may not fully understand it, but if we can measure it, surely it exists.

Especially given that time is involved in many equations that relate to our understanding of even simple physics.

E.g. E=mc^2

It involves the speed of light, therefore encompasses time.

salvage said...

>Still, i find it hard to believe that time does not exist. We may not fully understand it, but if we can measure it, surely it exists.

Maybe, I think the most compelling argument for its existence is that gravity affects it and gravity doesn't bother with anything real.

Then again we haven't figured out gravity yet.

>It involves the speed of light, therefore encompasses time.

Another good point but like the quote says I'm agnostic about it. We just don't know enough to say one way or the other. Our senses are limited and our tools of measurement crude. I just don't think we can say for sure at this point.

But given enough time we'll figure it out.

salvage said...

"doesn't bother with anything real" should read "doesn't bother with anything unreal".

Rabhimself said...

Yeah, well i can't say for certain, but i'm pretty sure it has to exist.

I just can't get my head around the concept that it doesn't, and not because i don't want to, i just genuinely don't think it makes sense.