Monday, February 5, 2018

I Think Your Claim Wound Down To Absurdity A Long Time Ago, Though Not In An Infinite Past

How indeed can you test what existed before the universe existed? You can’t.  George Ellis

Geesh, try thinking, for once.   A steady-state universe IS an infinite regression, even in the alternative version of it in a universe ensemble that includes ours that goes in and out of existence.   It inevitably involves a regression of an actual infinity of, not just numbers, but entire universes into an infinite past that will progress into an infinite future.  It inevitably involves a claim that there are an infinite number of things including all of the logical paradoxes and contradictions and problems of that.  

I don't know if the criticism is true that the idea violates one of the most cherished items in physical theory, The Second Law of Thermodynamics to the extent that if that were valid such an ensemble would have had to have devolved into total chaos unable to produce a fluctuation into our, present universe,  it's way past my ability to read the equations and follow the arguments.   But I'd love to hear why it wouldn't.  

If the physical laws for each incarnation of the universe are different then I don't know how you can assume that our physics can tell you anything at all legitimate about those earlier ones you imagine.  Maybe in the last one the physics was such that it was the absolute first instead of just one that regressed into the infinite past and IT was the actual origin of the universe in ways which will forever be out of the reach of today's cosmology and physics.  If not, then that Second Law problem looks like a real one, to me.   Maybe our universe is wound down just enough that our physics can't tell us what we'd need to know to figure that out.  Hell, maybe the physical nature of OUR earliest universe, before the horizon before which physics can't see and so can't know would tell us why the Big Bang really was the real beginning of it all. 

That's like the problem of the multiverse dodge that claims that in other universes the physics and other foundations of the science they claim to create those universes out of are, in some unspecified way, "different" than here when those "differences" can't be asserted except from within the physics, logic and mathematics that we find work, to some extent, here.  

In the most absurd of all of the multiverse nonsense I'm aware of, Hugh Everett's claim that every event in our universe generates new universes in which alternative events happen, I'm wondering since scientists like him refuse to believe that God could have the power that created this, one universe where his sect of the multiverse religion believes the power to fuel this continual creation of infinities of universes comes from.   But they let them call it science - in the total absence of not only any evidence but even a prospect of finding evidence to support their claims - since it's convenient for atheism.  

I'd still like to know how, since they can't even find "other life" in our, one universe they think they can confirm that "other universes" either have or don't have life, not to mention intelligent life.   Maybe every one does because God favors life, as I believe it says in Scripture. 

This isn't much but the classical definition of science, which has gained science such repute, reverting to something even more authoritarian and absurd than scholastic science.  At least that was motivated by and held their theories up to observable phenomena.   This stuff isn't and I'm going to say, certainly never will be tested.  It is rankest intellectual dishonesty in service to atheist ideology.  It is writing science-fiction in equations and passing that off as knowledge when it is unevidenced pretending based on no observation or measurement of actual phenomena. 

Update on my earlier post:  I should have noted that even as Bertrand Russell was making his argument against the idea of an infinite regression so as to defeat the idea that God caused things, he, himself, advocated an infinite regression in a steady-state universe in which there was an infinite past.  I'm not sure if he ever felt compelled to acknowledge that the evidence didn't support that in his last years. 

No comments:

Post a Comment