Conservation of energy

[The Tanager]

I don't know if this should go here, because I'm not making a religious point off of this here, but it could possibly clear up some confusion in another thread.

Which of these would you say is the law of conservation of energy? Or how would you tighten the law up more?

(1) Matter/energy/mass are eternal

(2) In a closed system, the total amount of mass/energy/matter is constant or conserved. That the system does not gain or lose any energy when transformations take place within it.

[William]

[Replying to post 288 by TSGracchus]

Having read the article, I am left wondering as to what exactly people are meaning when they say 'the universe is infinite."

Thus the universe is finite but unbounded save by the singularity which is not actually part of the field.

To be clear, there are 2 main thoughts re the universe.
1: It is not infinite. It had a beginning and it will end.
2: It is infinite. It had no beginning and will have no end.

What you had to say in your post does not seem to speak to one or the other. What I quoted from that, speaks to the idea that the universe is finite.

It also appears to speak of something which is not part of the universe, which you call a 'singularity'. Something not part of something else.

[TSGracchus]

[Replying to post 289 by William]

Space-time is not separated into space and time. Whether a distance is perceived as space or as time is dependent on the frame of reference. In other words, the distance between points may be perceived as a difference in space or a distance in time or some combination. It's kind of hard to explain if you don't know anything about geometric manifolds and differential equations. And I won't try to give a beginners class here. I am barely qualified myself.

Throw in the projection of a multi-dimensional field of probabilities projected onto the four-dimensional sub-space we perceive and it is kind of complicated.

I can recommend some areas of study if you are really interested: Pre-calculus, calculus, advanced calculus, set theory, complex analysis, quaternions, ... When you see how it all fits together it is one of those "EUREKA!" moments that make math so satisfying.

And any language less versatile and well defined than math is just inevitably misleading metaphor.

[William]

[Replying to post 290 by TSGracchus]

Are you saying that there is no way to explain 'the universe is infinite' unless one masters mathematics?

Or are you saying that there is no way for you to explain 'the universe is infinite' other than with mathematics?

For me it is easy enough to conceptualize without math at all.

Infinite means - in relation to the idea of Conservation of energy and the universe - it is NOT what countless various (and I might add unique) forms the universe produces through the process of transformation, but that this process has been going on infinitely...so where 'Big Bang' beginnings take place, these are not the beginning of the universe, but the beginning of a particular manifestation of forms the universe will produce from the 'quantum potential' which is really what the universe is made of.
Mathematics only comes into it when form is established and there is something to measure and the ONLY aspect of the universe which CAN do the mathematics is CONSCIOUSNESS.

This is not to say, of course, that consciousness is NOT part of the process of creativity in relation to forms. Indeed, it is my understanding that form cannot take place without consciousness, and thus the 'quantum potential' requires consciousness to activate it into shape, so to speak.

Which of course points to the idea that IF our universe is infinite, this does not mean that consciousness is not also infinite OR that there are not other universes which also exist.

By all means, be the mathematician, but don't let that get you thinking that the universe requires mathematics in order to explain everything about it, and that one has to learn the language in order to be up to speed and in the know.

[TSGracchus]

[Replying to post 290 by TSGracchus]

William: "Are you saying that there is no way to explain 'the universe is infinite' unless one masters mathematics?
Or are you saying that there is no way for you to explain 'the universe is infinite' other than with mathematics?"

I am saying that "infinity" is a mathematical concept. It can be interpreted at the slope of a vertical line, or the limit of an infinite diverging series. The slope of a line is the rise over the run, as, for instance the tangent of Pi over 2 radians, which is the slope of, for instance the vector [1, 0]. This slope is actually 1/0.(!)

In fact, as Cantor showed, there is more than one infinity. There are an infinite number of even integers, the same number of odd integers and set containing both even and odd integers has also the same number of elements as either. The number of points on a line, is however, greater. The proof is not especially difficult if you care to make the effort.

What I am saying is that if you mean by "infinity", "real big" you are misleading yourself. The universe has an infinite number of points to be sure, but its extent in space-time is finite.

"The age of the universe is estimated to be 13.8 billion years. While it is commonly understood that nothing can accelerate to velocities equal to or greater than that of light, it is a common misconception that the radius of the observable universe must therefore amount to only 13.8 billion light-years." -- Observable universe - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe

"The proper distance—the distance as would be measured at a specific time, including the present—between Earth and the edge of the observable universe is 46 billion light-years (14 billion parsecs), making the diameter of the observable universe about 91 billion light-years (28×109 pc)." --Universe - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe

[William]

[Replying to post 292 by TSGracchus]

It sounds to me then that you are saying that the article and indeed, the idea that the 'universe is infinite' is not a theory dealing with that actual concept, and when mentioned, what is being said is that mathematically the universe is infinite' not in actuality.

This simply muddies the waters.

It also explains why you are not addressing my points in relation to the idea that the universe is actually infinite.

What you are saying is that mathematics is infinite, which is another subject altogether from the idea that the universe is infinite and something you should not have failed to see regarding what I have been saying about that idea.

BTW - infinity is not solely a mathematical idea. One does not need to have any grasp the of the language of mathematics in order to get the gist.

If anything all mathematics shows about the idea is that it is pointless counting...

[TSGracchus]

William: �It sounds to me then that you are saying that the article and indeed, the idea that the 'universe is infinite' is not a theory dealing with that actual concept, and when mentioned, what is being said is that mathematically the universe is infinite' not in actuality.�

What I was actually trying to say is that the universe does not seem to be spatially or temporally infinite. It has an age and a diameter.

William: �This simply muddies the waters .�

Well, you brought the water and you brought the mud. I was using pixels.
Perhaps the mud is an artifact of your own imperfect understanding?

William: �It also explains why you are not addressing my points in relation to the idea that the universe is actually infinite.�"

What is your definition of infinity? I pointed out how mathematicians use the term. Again: The universe does not seem to be spatially or temporally infinite. It seems to be bounded by a singularity.

William: �What you are saying is that mathematics is infinite, which is another subject altogether from the idea that the universe is infinite and something you should not have failed to see regarding what I have been saying about that idea.�

No! That is a blatant untruth. I stated that mathematics has strict definitions of infinities and infinitesimals. Cantor showed that some infinities are greater than others. You have some other concept of infinity which you have not defined.

William: �BTW - infinity is not solely a mathematical idea. One does not need to have any grasp the of the language of mathematics in order to get the gist.�

You are making a claim that the universe is somehow “infinite�. You will not accept the definition of infinity provided by mathematics. It seems to me that you just wave your hands and claim to understand it in some other sense. You seem to use it as a Humpty Dumpty word.

William: �If anything all mathematics shows about the idea is that it is pointless counting...�

Mathematics can and does deal with uncountables. And mathematics is far from pointless. Geometry deals quite strictly with points and knows how to draw lines.

I ask again: In what sense do you define “infinity� when postulating an infinite universe?

[William]

[Replying to post 294 by TSGracchus]

In what sense do you define “infinity� when postulating an infinite universe?

You can find that out by reading the last few posts I made before you came in with your mathematics comments.

[TSGracchus]

[Replying to post 294 by TSGracchus]

In what sense do you define “infinity� when postulating an infinite universe?

You can find that out by reading the last few posts I made before you came in with your mathematics comments.

I found this:
William: "Infinite means - in relation to the idea of Conservation of energy and the universe - ..."

You started with a qualification.

William: "...- it is NOT what countless various (and I might add unique) forms the universe produces through the process of transformation, ..."

Then you stated what it was not.

William: "...but that this process has been going on infinitely...so where 'Big Bang' beginnings take place, these are not the beginning of the universe, but the beginning of a particular manifestation of forms the universe will produce from the 'quantum potential' which is really what the universe is made of. "

And you never got around to actually defining infinity. You just kept asserting that there could be something other than space-time. If there were something outside of space it would be space and if there were anything before time it would be time-bound. Absolute "nothing" is, by definition, non-existent. And if everything is conscious then there is no need for the term, just as if every thing is dark there is no need for the term dark because it defines, separates only the real and unreal.

William: "Mathematics only comes into it when form is established and there is something to measure and the ONLY aspect of the universe which CAN do the mathematics is CONSCIOUSNESS."

Mathematics describes not proscribes. [font=Times New Roman]Ï€[/font] has to be what it is to be sure, but [font=Times New Roman]Ï€[/font] is a limit in a non-linear space as the radius of curvature tends to zero. it is just one of those facts that are real whether there is anyone around to believe or not.

Now, you might argue as I would that the universe is fractal and that the part contains the whole and that every virtual particle that pops into and out of existence is, in fact, the Planck diameter cross section of the universe popping into and out of existence. It's kind of hard to get your head around but the math works. But the evidence points to space-time being finite and bounded by the singularity.

Then you can explain the mechanism of consciousness in a stone.

[Still small]

The fact that you do not understand the laws of thermodynamics and/or completely misapply them does not assist your argument.

So you say, once again, yet without explanation or argument, once again. Maybe you’d care to explain to the rest of the readers where and how I’m misapplying the laws of thermodynamics.

You have given ZERO evidence to refute the fact the universe has always existed. That it has always been in no way refutes any physical law. The fact that the universe has always been is consistent with every physical law.

Are you referring to this 4D universe which we are experiencing (and the only one we can verify to exist)? If so and you believe it to have always been, can you explain, to the readers, 1) how you avoid Olber’s paradox. And 2), as the 2LoT states that over time the amount of available energy for work decreases continually, why after an infinite amount of time we still have available energy to use?

The fable that some 'god' created the universe from nothing, however, violates the very laws you have been quoting; i.e. "matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed." Since matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed we know that some imagined 'god' did not create matter from nothing. The only alternative is that the universe has always existed.

As you, by referring to 1LoT, appear to think my belief in the creation of the universe by God is not possible and contrary to my argument but you’d be wrong. One point that you appear to have missed which I have stated several times is that the first scientific law of thermodynamics states that “neither energy nor matter can be created or destroyed� by natural means, being the only means which the scientific method can test and verify. This law, I agree with 100% but the creation of the universe by God would not be considered to be by natural means and, thereby, not subject to the 1LoT.

Have a good day!
Still small

[William]

[Replying to post 296 by TSGracchus]

I found this:

"Infinite means - in relation to the idea of Conservation of energy and the universe - ..."

You started with a qualification.

"...- it is NOT what countless various (and I might add unique) forms the universe produces through the process of transformation, ..."

...but that this process has been going on infinitely...so where 'Big Bang' beginnings take place, these are not the beginning of the universe, but the beginning of a particular manifestation of forms the universe will produce from the 'quantum potential' which is really what the universe is made of. "

And you never got around to actually defining infinity.

Not sure why you want infinity 'defined'. The comments I made above are simply going along with one idea about the universe - often one which is used by non-theists as a means of showing that a creator is not required IF the universe has always existed (is eternal and continues infinitely).

You just kept asserting that there could be something other than space-time.

Well spacetime only happens in relation to formation. Since the model being examined was that the stuff of the universe (which I referred to as 'quantum potential') was not always in the state of form (moving from potential to actual) then spacetime does not exist in this state of the universe. The 'asserting' there is something other than spacetime has to do with the model of the universe as eternal and infinite.

My interest isn't in asserting the model is correct, but whether the model makes a creative entity obsolete.

If there were something outside of space it would be space...

Is this like saying 'if there were anything outside the drop of water, it would be the lake the drop of water is in?'

...and if there were anything before time it would be time-bound.

This infers that time exists before time exists.

Absolute "nothing" is, by definition, non-existent.

As long as there is something to define existence, things which exist will be defined.
If that which does the defining chooses not to define itself as a 'thing' - say - as a means of distinguishing physical from non physical , mind from non mind - consciousness from forms, then it could be said that which is no thing, does exist.

And if everything is conscious then there is no need for the term, just as if every thing is dark there is no need for the term dark because it defines, separates only the real and unreal.

Are you forgetting that which is doing the defining? Perhaps your confusion is in the idea that the material infused with the immaterial is still just the material. Every thing is not dark, or light. If every thing was dark and infused with consciousness, then consciousness defines the 'dark' of that thing, but also understands that which is doing the defining is not 'dark'. Rather, that which is doing the defining is experiencing being in the dark.

The same would apply if every thing was 'light'.

In either case, it would not be long before the consciousness decided that the experience of only 'dark' or 'light' was of no value, and would do something about it.

"Mathematics only comes into it when form is established and there is something to measure and the ONLY aspect of the universe which CAN do the mathematics is CONSCIOUSNESS."

Mathematics describes not proscribes.

I don't think so. Rather it is a device created by consciousness and it is consciousness which both describes and proscribes. Mathematics is one way in which consciousness can be assisted in this process, but mathematics - like science - is the device of consciousness, not consciousness itself.

[font=Times New Roman]Ï€[/font] has to be what it is to be sure, but [font=Times New Roman]Ï€[/font] is a limit in a non-linear space as the radius of curvature tends to zero. it is just one of those facts that are real whether there is anyone around to believe or not.

Wrong.

Facts only become facts where consciousness is 'around' to observe and interact with both potential and actual. [font=Times New Roman]Ï€[/font] would not exist as a symbol OR an idea if consciousness did not exist to acknowledge and create the symbols as part of that process.

Now, you might argue as I would that the universe is fractal and that the part contains the whole and that every virtual particle that pops into and out of existence is, in fact, the Planck diameter cross section of the universe popping into and out of existence. It's kind of hard to get your head around but the math works. But the evidence points to space-time being finite and bounded by the singularity.

Then the argument that the universe is eternal and infinite as a means of claiming a creator is not necessary by those who want it that way, is fallacy - according to your statement above.
All I was doing was showing that even if it were actually the case, this in itself does not mean that a creator is not involved.

As I have said before, Panentheism can deal with both theories re the universe and still show the logic that a creator is necessary.