Can there be such a thing as nothing?

[QED]

If we try to clear our minds and use them to conceive of nothingness it almost hurts. It's as if it's an impossible feat for the imagination. Logic and language fully support this notion. How can there be such a thing as nothing? Is this logical contradiction just a play on words or could it be the reason why everything exists?

[Curious]

That's not necessarily true. There is quantum tunneling, for example. In this scenario, t=0 means that the wavefunction has not tunneled through the potential barrier. Perhaps t=1 is the potential barrier being breached by the big bang...

In the case of the BBT, t=0 would correspond to there being present while t>0 would refer to the separation of past and present. (The actual moment of separation would still be t=0 though)

Not necessarily. T=0 only means that there is a quantum potential. Of course, a potential doesn't exist in that there are no fields there, it just means that there will be tunneling at t=1.

We obviously have different ideas about the meanings of particular terms here. I refer to t=0 as being the beginning state where there is no past but only a present. I think it is confusing referring to t=1 as the beginning state as the separation would occur at t=0 and all subsequent events would occur at t>0.

What is the false premise? In any case, we can only deal with what is conceivable. If an atheist wishes me to believe something that is not conceivable, then why don't they believe in God even though they think God is not conceivable? We are all on equal playing grounds. If you want to argue your position, you must show how your argument is more convincing by its conceivability. We are talking about things that happened before we were born, and there's no way to visit those times to know what happened. So, the only way to encounter these issues is by their conceivability. If something is not conceivable, then we can accept those things on faith, however atheists don't like that kind of reasoning. I'm asking them to show me how to conceive of a universe that doesn't happen as a result of luck which doesn't involve a pantheistic/theistic belief.

Well in my first quote I gave example of my own possibly false premise. Of course I cannot prove that any assumptions I made are incorrect but it is highly likely that, since I am not omniscient, I fail to take into account many many factors which would make the assumption incorrect. As you stated earlier, you are not a fundamentalist so you must already be aware of the many arguments that are based on the false premise of biblical literalism.
As for your own false premise regarding the creation of the universe you state that either God created the universe or that the universe came from nothing are the only two options. You argue that since it is not feasible for the universe to be created from nothing then it must therefore lead to the conclusion that the universe was created by God(in essence, obviously I can't put the whole argument here). If a theory is incorrect though how can it be any more valid than a thousand other theories, each one being equally incorrect? It is just as valid to argue that the universe did not appear from nothing at all but may have always existed as this supports the observation that the energy that is, has always been, and always will be, but changes in form. The argument that appears to strengthen one case and weaken the other now has little bearing on the new theory and what might have appeared evidence for one does not now appear to be evidence for it at all.

[ST88]

If there is zero radius for all spacetime(s), then that means there is nothing. Since we have something other than this situation, are we lucky that this wasn't the way things happened to be? So, as a theist, I would like to know why an atheist feels justified in saying that we have any structure at all (other than the fact that we are here).

You're completely missing the point of atheism. Justification is irrelevant. Atheism states that there is a hypothesis that there is a God, and that this hypothesis has no evidence (or not enough evidence, depending on who you talk to) that is substantial enough to support it. It is therefore rejected.

The "zero-radius spacetime" is limited to this universe or other individual universes. In the multiple-universe-bubble hypothesis, the terms "space" and "time" only apply within the bubbles. Lack of space and/or time does not imply absolute nothingness. Our existence is defined by space and/or time, so when we conceive of the absence of this, our little heads don't know what to replace it with. Our current understanding of it is "nothingness". But the fact of multiple universes implies some kind of instantiation mechanism from one state to another.

You're misunderstanding me, ST. Of course if the Universe had an inherent function to produce something from nothing, then it could keep on producing somethings over and over like a machine. But, this function must exist "right off the bat." What if this function didn't exist? What if the zero radius Universe just didn't do anything beyond stay at zero radius? In this case, the state of nothingness would mean no 15th bubble or 1,567,456,257th bubble either. It would just be "no bubble," "no bubble," "no bubble," and still "no bubble."

Yes, we'd be up a certain creek with no paddle. And our existence denies this. As to why it happened like this to begin with... Why not?

OK. OK. So your physics has failed to come up with a reasonable explanation for you. So you turn to theism. That strikes me as slightly less than a logical reaction. You seem to want to put atheism through some kind of acid test. You are an original among degraded copies, my dear harv. Your fallback position is God.

If "right off the bat" the Universe possessed this spit function that you described earlier, then consequentially there would be bubbles. However, why was there this spit function? Why did it spit out inflationary universes instead of monads that by brute fact do nothing else but be a land of monads with no inflationary universes? If you cannot answer these questions, then why should someone be an atheist? Why not be an agnostic or even a theist?

What is it about this mechanism that makes you believe it is influenced by an intelligence? If you feel it is just too outlandish to be purely mechanistic, then you join the pantheon of thinkers who believed just that about many things we now know to be purely mechanistic. The way I understand physics (which is not at the PhD level, I assure you), something like this is just as "out there, yet plausible" as some of the other wacko stuff that happens.

But the Atheist explanation does not require that everything be worked out ahead of time. Let me say that again: The Atheist explanation does not require that everything be worked out ahead of time. You've been tilting at Atheism because it doesn't have all the answers. Well, duh! We don't know all the answers.

Then why make the claim that it is right and the other view is unreasonable? It would be like if I said that string theory is unreasonable even though I say that quantum loop theory is correct even though I can provide far fewer answers than string theorists.

I'll address this below with your other "answers" comment.

It really comes down to two choices. Every answer to the universe derives from these two philosophies. Either the ultimate structure that explains our universe is a consequence of a random function which provides enough possibilities that by shear number happens to fall on the "right" combination to eventually produce an inflationary universe like our own, or this ultimate structure is a consequence of some logical mechanism which conforms to some axioms that must be true. The first choice is part of the atheist family of beliefs, and the second choice is part of the theist/pantheist family of beliefs. The first choice is nonsense because we should depend so much on luck, the second choice is almost a foregone conclusion because it matches with our observations on how the universe naturally follows mathematical laws. The first choice involves no intent to the world, the other has intent for the world because everything that exists must somehow cohere with the whole mathematical order that exists.

That's very well stated. I don't agree with you, but I think it's a good example of this kind of thinking. I still don't get how a universe that follows mathematical laws is not mechanistic. Or that a logical mechanism isn't mechanistic. No correlation is necessary between intent and math/logic/mechanism.

You say that atheism should be dumped because it cannot provide answers, but I say it should be promoted exactly because it hasn't provided answers.

That's an odd reason to adopt a belief system. Why not adopt any ole' belief that doesn't provide answers. Here, let me get you started. A new theory that I would like to catch on is zigzagology. Zigzagology is a philosophy that says that every proported answer is actually the wrong answer, even zigzagology is the wrong answer!

That's a good bit of satire, but those lines weren't a couplet. Let me tell you, I would love to know the answers to certain questions. And I'm sure that there are many theist positions that could give them to me. But I just don't work that way. Be suspicious of he who gives you answers. For answers are all too easy. Atheism need not say anything about why the universe was created, for example. These sorts of questions can keep you up nights. Our technology of language is such that we can ask all sorts of nonsense questions. But they only lead to nonsense answers.

Isn't it exciting to be a part of this historical progression towards answering these questions? Some we may never know the answers to, and others we may discover only after decades or even centuries of research and experimentation. We don't even know which questions can be answered by us and which will never be answered. This may be my Agnosticism coming out, and I apologize for making the Atheist argument from such a position.

You're experiencing the excitement of there being a cause-effect relationship in our world that is ultimately due to there being a logical order (or God) to the world. Ultimately the world conforms to logical laws, and this conformance is judged by a Mind as being in conformance to those law or it is not in conformance. The excitement of finding things out is a natural consequence of attaching meaning to those laws. It is what makes explanation possible.

Sez harv.

I think QED said somewhere around here that if you remove God from this conception of the universe, it still operates like the packaging said it would. That's about the best way I can think of to put it.

I am really really really really confused by the attitude that a model that has more answers is a better model simply for having those answers.

Well, it's better than the alternative! If a model doesn't provide answers then what the heck purpose does it serve other than being wrong??

So wrong answers are better than no answers?

History is littered with failed civilizations who thought they had more answers than other societies. This is another reason why the Why question is so seductive and destructive.

And, so very necessary. It is when people stop asking why is when they get into trouble. The push for an answer to the why question is the reason that civilizations continue to progress with new and better theories.

No question there. It it much more effective to control a population with a cohesive mythology than a rational discussion framework.

What you miss in this exercise is that my "Because" brings up 5 more why questions that now must be answered. Your "why not?" just leaves people standing into the abyss saying "why, why not? hmm... why? why not?..." eventually the Hun come over the hill and obliterates the civilization. In my society, the Hun come over the hill but find themselves facing a society that has developed F-18's and the like. A society that tries to answer the why question puts the Hun at a slight disadvantage.

Navel-gazing is strictly for non-pragmatists. There are plenty of those on both sides.

That's a very nice pipe dream. But we both know that faith is not based on cold, hard data. It is based on personal, anecdotal observation. If faith were based on data, it wouldn't be faith.

But, atheism isn't based on data. It is based on an unjustified prejudice toward a random function producing enough landscapes to solve any problem. This is an anti-scientific approach which seeks to understand the world through algorithms which explain the world. Theism is a belief system that says that ultimately every thing is explainable in these terms. This naturally moves toward a simple core of algorithms that explain everything in a unifying manner. Atheism is a view that ultimately every thing is a consequence of even more things that reaches to the point of absurdity that the world is infinitely complex to explain a much lower level of complexity we see in our world.

I'm not quite sure what you mean here, could you explain or re-state this? Is the infinite complexity absurd or the lower level complexity?

I don't have to justify my stance. I don't have to describe the mechanism by which our universe was created.

Now, in all honesty, couldn't that be the quote from a creationist in reply to a paleontologist asking for their alternate explanation of a fossil find?

Umm... Doesn't the Creationist already know the mechanism by which the universe was created? Wouldn't that be the God mechanism?

I don't even have to give you a good alternative to your God model theory. Atheism is not a defined set of implacable theories the way theism is. Atheism is messy. It's chaotic. It's not a warm and fuzzy world view. It's the denial of the assertion that there is a God. That's it.

Geez, ST. If I said I didn't believe the universe is infinitely old, wouldn't that mean by default that I believed the universe is finitely old? This is what the atheist is doing. By saying that there is no God they are saying the world is a random structure.

A strict mechanistic universe is not random.

Now, it is strange that someone would insist on saying what the world is not without giving good reason, but it is even more strange to say the world is a certain way without giving a good reason too. I want to know the reason for the belief system. I understand that you may not feel that you should give a reason to support your belief, but I'm the poor sap who believes in something that you think is wrong. Tell me why I am wrong. Give me a good reason to believe you are right. Of course, you don't have to convince anybody of squat, but this looks like a compromise on your part to feel okay about basing your views on some kind of blind faith rather than believing beliefs based on good reason.

Hm. So it is my blind faith that is accepting the fact that there is no God? Let's put my Agnosticism aside here for the moment. The theist is the one making the assertion about something that can't be perceived. It is the theist's position that there is something about the way the universe works that doesn't appear to be what it, in fact, is. The atheist sees things with h/h own eyes, perceives with the senses, reasons those things which can be reasoned. But lo, there is this other thing, this thing which can't be seen, peceived, or reasoned. And there is this peculiar way which the universe behaves which can't be explained by current physical theories, but can be explained by this other thing. And here are 170 books describing what this thing is, each one with its own version of the thing; and, by the way, most of those are mutually exclusive of each other about the characteristics of that thing. Oh, and by the way, this thing that explains everything about how the universe works? It is free to violate all of those rules when it suits it.

Atheism is nothing more than a rejection of the big It.

That's the only thing there is about it. This denial may have come about through years of observation, or through an epiphany in a single moment. The God model has numerous problems with it, and it is rejected.

This just isn't the case, ST. The reason why it is rejected is because most people have not gone to the beginning and thoroughly thought it out. Of course you can use a random function to produce enough worlds to rule out a God, but you can use that same thought process to rule out science as well. We have to be reasonable if we want to progress in a better world view. It seems that many A&A's have just made up their minds as to what is true and darn it, they aren't going to listen to theists, pantheists, deists, or anyone for that matter. That's a shame in my book. Atheists are so dead-locked on their belief system and they just rule out whatever they just don't want to believe. I find that to be a closed-minded outlook to the world. I'm sorry, but that's how it looks from the view where I sit.

You are forgiven. I am sure that is how it appears. You should know that there are many Atheists, I would venture to say most who would love to be able to believe. Personally, I would much rather go have free coffee and donuts every Sunday morning (except during football season) with a bunch of people who accepted me for who I was and reassured me that I was on the right path. But if I were to do that, it would be a sham. It would be false, and I know it would be false, because that belief is not something I am hard-wired to have.

I believe you are wrong about why theism is rejected. I don't think there are many atheists who are so because of casual unbelief. It's just not acceptable enough in our culture to be an atheist. It must be pursued in spite of the messages we receive on a daily basis. To persist as atheists, it would be necessary to understand how it could fit into the culture, where it provides explanations and where it doesn't -- and how one could defend one's position.

Now THAT's funny. Why would you expect our current means of programming to have a few lines of code for this when we don't even know what the unifying force is? This only points to a failure of the programming language and the measurement devices.

Listen to yourself, ST. Here we have a means by which phenomena in the universe are being explained. And, what is your answer? Atheism must be right and we just haven't worked at it enough. That's faith! Why not consider all the conceivable possibilities that fail to produce inflationary models?? You can't just consider the ones that make it. And, as I said, the correct model would have to be correct "right off the bat" otherwise you'd be sitting there with a zero radius universe and that's your brute fact atheist world.

Again, it must seem that way from where you're sitting. I think you said somewhere that you can imagine being an atheist. I salute you, sir. I, for one, could not possibly imagine being a believer. I don't know how you do it.

My faith as you call it is actually more akin to educated expectation. There have been so many other phenomenae that have been explained as not being God or anything supernatural that it only makes sense that others will also. There have been many times in history when humans have thought that everything that could have been discovered or known has already been. This position was always wrong. And here we are in the 21st century with many people saying the same things. There's nothing left to discover; we've reached the border fence with where God begins. It's like watching another stock market bubble, wondering when it will burst.

[harvey1]

Hey ST,

Let me cut this down a bit. It seems you have two major objections to my post:

1. The God hypothesis and Success of the Mechanist Solution: The theist is "the one making the assertion about something that can't be perceived" despite not having evidence of God's existence. The atheist is merely rejecting that which can't be seen, perceived, or reasoned. The universe has "many other phenomenae that have been explained as not being God or anything supernatural that it only makes sense that others will also. There have been many times in history when humans have thought that everything that could have been discovered or known has already been. This position was always wrong. And here we are in the 21st century with many people saying the same things." Since these answers are not forthcoming for many of the issues that confront us, the best position to hold is one that rejects the God hypothesis since the success of past mechanist explanations are as good an indicator of the future as anything else. If we remove God entirely from our mechanist explanations about the universe, the universe appears that it would operate just fine without a God. Hence, an atheist can feel justified in their rejection of that hypothesis as an "educated expectation."
2. Turning toward Theism as an Alternative to a Good Explanation for the Universe: Why turn toward theism if atheism fails my acid test? The "[l]ack of space and/or time does not imply absolute nothingness. Our existence is defined by space and/or time, so when we conceive of the absence of this, our little heads don't know what to replace it with. Our current understanding of it is 'nothingness.' But the fact of multiple universes implies some kind of instantiation mechanism from one state to another." Using mathematical laws as an alternate explanation still strikes you as another mechanist explanation. An explanation that does not require intelligence to exist in the universe. Such a mechanist universe is not random.

Okay, so let me respond to these two points...

1. The God hypothesis and Success of the Mechanist Solution:

First off, I'd like to correct a misconception. There is no such thing as a "God hypothesis." Generally speaking, the word hypothesis is used extensively in science to mean a scientific proposition lacking in experimental confirmation of its veracity. Theism and atheism are philosophical beliefs. Similarly, the "scientific method" is also a philosophical belief (or set of beliefs). There is a philosophy of science that justifies the epistemological practices of science, and this is based on the instrumental success of these methods. Similarly, there are many other philosophical beliefs that exist outside the philosophy of science (e.g., philosophy of religion, ontology, etc.) which address different issues than science. So, it is not correct to label these beliefs of philosophy in terms of scientific jargon.

Within philosophy, no proposition is given a free ride. That is, it's not a matter of showing the con of one to prove the other. One has to justifiy their philosophical beliefs on the best reasons available. Likewise, one has to minimize the impact the cons of their belief with the best reasons available. If the cons are detrimental to that belief, then unless there's exceptional reasons to expect otherwise, one should be prepared to give up their belief system. This doesn't mean that scientific evidence must be presented. Rather, all that must be present are good enough reasons to think the other view is wrong and the proponent belief is right. If such exists, then we have good reason to believe one and not the other.

In this light, then, we see the fallacy of atheism. As I mentioned, there is a very significant con to believe that philosophical atheism is valid. We have no way of justifying the belief in light of the extreme amount of luck that is needed in order for our "educated expectation" to be met. Likewise, we see that theism/pantheism meets the cons that lean against it, and we see good reasons to think the world is mathematical and requiring intent and unity in its structure. Therefore, based on these conclusions, it is reasonable to be a theist and it is unreasonable for one to be an atheist.

Your argument that mechanism has shown God to be not required for modern explanation is an equivocation on the term "God." Yes, if you mean an old man with a beard in some distant land called Heaven, then I would agree that modern explanation has completely obliterated such kind of need for an old man running the show. However, if by God we mean something much closer to the pantheist conception of that term, now you have a problem. The modern explanation has completely turned in favor of a pantheist interpretation of scientific laws. Nineteenth century materialism is basically dead. The mechanist approach of people like LaPlace have been replaced by Heisenberg's principle of uncertainty, or Noether's view of symmetry, etc.. These are now proposed in science as valid principles by which to understand the laws of physics. It is still a philosophical belief, but this belief is taken for granted by many in cosmology. It is so prevalent that now we can envision those laws as existing in order to bring about a space-time. So, to answer your first objection, the pantheist/panentheist definition of God is a much better fit to modern science and has none of the nineteenth century views of mechanism that justified many atheist beliefs in that century.

2. Turning toward Theism as an Alternative to a Good Explanation for the Universe:

If the shoe fits, then one should wear the shoe. Atheism, as far as I can tell, has been defeated. Now, it is a discussion of whether it is the pantheists or theists that are right. In my opinion, the atheists are either busy trying to redefine atheism to encompass agnosticism and/or pantheism, or they are just out of touch as to where modern cosmology and modern physics is in its use of governing principles to the universe.

When looking at your two statements, the "[l]ack of space and/or time does not imply absolute nothingness," and "the fact of multiple universes implies some kind of instantiation mechanism from one state to another," I don't think you understand what I'm saying. I am asking you to justify your belief that something ought to exist instead of nothing. You see, anyone (I mean ANYONE) can solve any problem by proposing a state space with enough random attempts to make the original problem go magically away. In order to make such a non-parsimonious solution one has to justify the state space that they say must be in place in order for their philosophical belief to be correct. Okay, let's start off with nothing and then you tell me what kind of mechanism (which you say is not depending on randomness) is needed in order to arrive at a universe such as our own. If you tell me, "my state space only requires a multiverse," then my first reaction is "whoa!" I find it absurd to allot any kind of assumption unless it can be shown that this is a reasonable assumption. And, it does not strike me as reasonable that someone can have a Universe that is more complex than the one in which we are trying to describe at the point of the big bang. You see, it's taken a good long time to reach the solution of the big bang, and that is a very simple solution. Now that we reached it you want to tell me that I need something more complicated than what we had prior to the work of Newton?? I don't get it. I can accept a more complex world than our own if there is a justifiable reason, but you haven't given me a reason. All you've given me is an equivocation on the definition of God, and then expected me to make the "educated expectation" that philosophical atheism is correct. That is all wrong.

I think this only leaves us with one recourse. And, that is that logico-mathematical laws exist which govern the universe and bring it about. But, here's where your equivocation has misled you as to a mechanist solution. This is clearly a pantheist-panentheist solution to the world, and not an atheist one. If you wish to become a pantheist/panentheist, then I welcome you to my world.

[Curious]

Hey ST...
...I think this only leaves us with one recourse. And, that is that logico-mathematical laws exist which govern the universe and bring it about. But, here's where your equivocation has misled you as to a mechanist solution. This is clearly a pantheist-panentheist solution to the world, and not an atheist one. If you wish to become a pantheist/panentheist, then I welcome you to my world.

Once again, you seem to be basing your argument on the assumption that atheism requires that the universe came from nothing. This is not the case. While many atheists may well believe this, it is also true that many do not, just as many who believe in God believe the literal version in Genesis regarding the creation of the universe, many others do not. Disproving spontaneous creation invalidates atheism as much as disproving the Genesis version invalidates theism. Both versions may be incorrect but what does this prove?
How would you argue, I wonder, regarding an atheistic view that the universe has always existed in some form or another and that the changes observed are merely changes of state. This view is consistent with conservation of energy, and as you are aware, there is no evidence whatsoever that energy is ever created or destroyed. This gives the theist far more problems than the atheist as the theist now has to prove that energy can be created spontaneously. While it is possible to measure the age of the earth or the sun, it is not possible to measure the age of the energy that forms it. Any method of aging the elements within the universe merely measures the age of that particular energy configuration and so is useless for measuring the age of the universe in respect to the energy within it. Universal inflation, rather than being an internally driven expansion might just as easily be caused by negative pressure in much the same way that a balloon expands and bursts when placed in a vacuum. The universal configuration may just be diffusing within the surrounding energy field.
This hypothesis takes out the element of "luck" that you would have us believe is so necessary to allow the universe to become structured in this way. Many different universes could permeate the field quite independently of one another and would still require the single necessity of an energy field(which we know, due to the conservation of energy, must always have existed).

[harvey1]

Once again, you seem to be basing your argument on the assumption that atheism requires that the universe came from nothing. This is not the case.

I've never said that.

How would you argue, I wonder, regarding an atheistic view that the universe has always existed in some form or another and that the changes observed are merely changes of state. This view is consistent with conservation of energy, and as you are aware, there is no evidence whatsoever that energy is ever created or destroyed. This gives the theist far more problems than the atheist as the theist now has to prove that energy can be created spontaneously.

Inflation has already aggressively started tackling an answer to this issue, so I don't think it is the theist's burden any longer. At one time it was considered to be the theist's burden to prove this, but this again only shows that science is moving toward pantheism-theism and away from any association with atheism.

If there were some pre-inflationary state the question would be how it avoids a singularity. The singularity theorem by Hawking-Penrose in 1970 is a pretty strong cosmological theorem based on classical physics (which includes General Relativity) that argues against such an infinite past. Linde's eternal inflation and other inflationary scenarios where quantum fields dominate (and classical physics fails) were hoped to get around the singularity problem, and they did get around the Hawking-Penrose theorem, but in 2003 the Borde, Guth, & Vilenkin theorem has shown under very reasonable assumptions that inflation cannot be eternal into the past. Guth talks about this issue in this paper.

While it is possible to measure the age of the earth or the sun, it is not possible to measure the age of the energy that forms it.

It is possible to measure the expansion of the universe to its origin. The age that has been estimated is approximately 13.7 billion years as a current estimate.

Any method of aging the elements within the universe merely measures the age of that particular energy configuration and so is useless for measuring the age of the universe in respect to the energy within it.

We don't measure the age of energy, we measure the estimated expansion rate of the universe and thereby come to a calculation of the universe's age.

Universal inflation, rather than being an internally driven expansion might just as easily be caused by negative pressure in much the same way that a balloon expands and bursts when placed in a vacuum. The universal configuration may just be diffusing within the surrounding energy field. This hypothesis takes out the element of "luck" that you would have us believe is so necessary to allow the universe to become structured in this way. Many different universes could permeate the field quite independently of one another and would still require the single necessity of an energy field(which we know, due to the conservation of energy, must always have existed).

Since you can't get around the singularity theorems, it would seem that this hypothesis would be in violation of physics.

[Curious]

How would you argue, I wonder, regarding an atheistic view that the universe has always existed in some form or another and that the changes observed are merely changes of state. This view is consistent with conservation of energy, and as you are aware, there is no evidence whatsoever that energy is ever created or destroyed. This gives the theist far more problems than the atheist as the theist now has to prove that energy can be created spontaneously.

Inflation has already aggressively started tackling an answer to this issue, so I don't think it is the theist's burden any longer. At one time it was considered to be the theist's burden to prove this, but this again only shows that science is moving toward pantheism-theism and away from any association with atheism.

With all due respect Harvey1, this doesn't answer the question. How would YOUR theory overcome the obstacle of conservation.

If there were some pre-inflationary state the question would be how it avoids a singularity. The singularity theorem by Hawking-Penrose in 1970 is a pretty strong cosmological theorem based on classical physics (which includes General Relativity) that argues against such an infinite past. Linde's eternal inflation and other inflationary scenarios where quantum fields dominate (and classical physics fails) were hoped to get around the singularity problem, and they did get around the Hawking-Penrose theorem, but in 2003 the Borde, Guth, & Vilenkin theorem has shown under very reasonable assumptions that inflation cannot be eternal into the past. Guth talks about this issue in this paper.

In this theory the singularity is unnecessary and I never suggested that inflation went back forever, only that the energy field was eternal.

While it is possible to measure the age of the earth or the sun, it is not possible to measure the age of the energy that forms it.

It is possible to measure the expansion of the universe to its origin. The age that has been estimated is approximately 13.7 billion years as a current estimate.

And I explained why this would not measure the age of the energy field in the below quote.

Any method of aging the elements within the universe merely measures the age of that particular energy configuration and so is useless for measuring the age of the universe in respect to the energy within it.

We don't measure the age of energy, we measure the estimated expansion rate of the universe and thereby come to a calculation of the universe's age.

Exactly, we can't measure the age of the energy field at all. We don't have to though due to the fact that energy is eternal. We can measure particular configurations of energy though.

Universal inflation, rather than being an internally driven expansion might just as easily be caused by negative pressure in much the same way that a balloon expands and bursts when placed in a vacuum. The universal configuration may just be diffusing within the surrounding energy field. This hypothesis takes out the element of "luck" that you would have us believe is so necessary to allow the universe to become structured in this way. Many different universes could permeate the field quite independently of one another and would still require the single necessity of an energy field(which we know, due to the conservation of energy, must always have existed).

Since you can't get around the singularity theorems, it would seem that this hypothesis would be in violation of physics.

Singularities don't even enter into this theory. Why do you believe that a singularity must exist for this particular universe to become manifest in this way?
Please show me how physical laws are violated by this theory.

[harvey1]

With all due respect Harvey1, this doesn't answer the question. How would YOUR theory overcome the obstacle of conservation.

We already went over this. I even sent you to this site.

In this theory the singularity is unnecessary and I never suggested that inflation went back forever, only that the energy field was eternal.

The singularity is unavoidable based on General Relativity and Inflation.

And I explained why this would not measure the age of the energy field in the below quote.

Any method of aging the elements within the universe merely measures the age of that particular energy configuration and so is useless for measuring the age of the universe in respect to the energy within it.

Once you reach the big bang you get to a singularity where the mass of the universe reaches infinite density and the laws of classical physics break down. There are possibly quantum consideration that take place, and this is the basis of inflation. However, as I mentioned, inflation does not remove the singularity happening at some finite time in the past. Hence, just having a different configuration of matter does not remove the singularity issue. You simply cannot have a universe that existed an infinite time ago based on all that cosmologists consider to be reasonable assumptions.

Exactly, we can't measure the age of the energy field at all. We don't have to though due to the fact that energy is eternal. We can measure particular configurations of energy though.

It would seem that matter-energy for our universe is not eternal. This is the predicament presented by these singularity theorems.

Singularities don't even enter into this theory. Why do you believe that a singularity must exist for this particular universe to become manifest in this way? Please show me how physical laws are violated by this theory.

Singularities mean that spacetime becomes infinitesimally small and infinitely dense. We have no physics to describe how a universe could emerge from a singularity, and I know of no cosmologist who seriously considers the universe emerging from a singularity.

[QED]

Singularities mean that spacetime becomes infinitesimally small and infinitely dense. We have no physics to describe how a universe could emerge from a singularity, and I know of no cosmologist who seriously considers the universe emerging from a singularity.

How about Lee Smolin? John Gribbon wrote an article titled Is the universe Alive in which he sets out the concept of universes evolving out of each other. (sorry for the link to a Fortean website!)

The key element that Smolin [Lee Smolin, professor of physics at the Center for Gravitational Physics and Geometry at Pennsylvania State University] has introduced is the idea that every time a black hole collapses into a singularity and a new baby universe is formed with a new space-time, the laws of physics that are born with it are slightly different. The force of gravity, for example, may be a little stronger--or weaker--than in the parent. The process, he argues, resembles the way mutations provide the variability among organic life forms on which natural selection can operate

[Curious]

We already went over this. I even sent you to this site.

Oh, so this is the theory you agree with. A great pity then as this theory must actually break the law of conservation initially.Even 0.0000001J extra is breaking the law. I also posted my objections to this theory previously and have yet to receive a rebuttal. The question remains, how does your theory, which seems preferable to an initial "zero state" theory, gain preference over this new theory.

The singularity is unavoidable based on General Relativity and Inflation.

The singularity is not unavoidable in the version that I have proposed. Do not make such wild statements without some explanation.

Once you reach the big bang you get to a singularity where the mass of the universe reaches infinite density and the laws of classical physics break down. There are possibly quantum consideration that take place, and this is the basis of inflation. However, as I mentioned, inflation does not remove the singularity happening at some finite time in the past. Hence, just having a different configuration of matter does not remove the singularity issue. You simply cannot have a universe that existed an infinite time ago based on all that cosmologists consider to be reasonable assumptions.

There need not be a singularity due to the fact that in this theory the energy field already permeates the "super universe" and the reconfiguration of the energy merely populates the space previously filled by the energy field. Where does the singularity become necessary?

It would seem that matter-energy for our universe is not eternal. This is the predicament presented by these singularity theorems.

How can you argue that energy is not eternal when all observation shows clearly that it is. When a proven theory is tested against an unproven theory, then the one that disagrees with fact is false(ie.the unproven theory). Energy is eternal, if it is not then explain why it is not.

Singularities mean that spacetime becomes infinitesimally small and infinitely dense. We have no physics to describe how a universe could emerge from a singularity, and I know of no cosmologist who seriously considers the universe emerging from a singularity.

I don't suggest that it does in this theory. It was you who brought singularities into it, I have always stated that this theory does not require a singularity to create our universe.

[Curious]

duplicate post deleted