Proof Eternalism is Correct
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
The collapse from a gas to a star produces huge amounts of entropy, much of it contained in the enormous amount of photons released.
OK, I stand corrected, but the main point is theBig Crunch would lower entropy: space itself would contract forcing all matter/energy into a single cell of space time - the ultimate in low entropy.
You realize it would have to pull those photons in also, right? The ultimate violation of the 2nd law.
Furthermore, The evidence also demonstrates that the universe is expanding at an accelerated rate due to dark energy.
Dark energy is repulsive and counteracts the effect of gravity, allowing the universe to expand.
All evidence dismisses big crunch events.
Right, within the current regime of knowledge about the universe, a big crunch isn't an option.
/e Of course, for someone who believes in magical beings: I suppose it isn't a big stretch.
Its the only option possible; there is only one place in the universe to get all the matter and energy for the Big Bang; the Big Crunch has it in precisely the right quantity.
How much energy do you think the universe has?
The amount of energy required for the big bang is equal to the amount of energy from the big crunch.
I guess I wasn't clear enough; I was hoping for a number and a unit:
How much energy do you think the universe has?
Observations of the universe put the total energy near 0 (the value of 0 is within the margin of error).
Now let's review your your previous comment:
Can you now see how problematic your statement is?
I do not buy the zero energy universe hypothesis. Note it's a hypothesis... not proven.
I do buy conservation of energy. Energy is not created or destroyed; its conserved. That is not a hypothesis.
There is an end of time because space-time is finite. Where does all the energy go at the end of time? Its conserved; the only place for it to go is the Big Bang
I was careful not to appeal to it, notice I discussed actual observations, not a hypothesis.
That is how the conservation of energy is taught to the layman. In physics it is dE/dt = 0. What I said earlier does violate the layman's version, but it does not violate dE/dt = 0.
No scientific hypothesis has ever been proven. Science is not in the proving business.
I still maintain that at the end of time energy must return to the start of time. It can't magically disappear in a poof. That would be as bad as creation ex nihilo.
(there must be an end of time as Eternalism and Finitism are both true).
I agree completely. However: starting with 0, having 0 in the 'middle', ending with 0; is consistent with dE/dt = 0, which you just endorsed. It also resolves your "poof problem". And best of all, it matches observation, which is all the really matters.
1. How does your energy get converted back to 0 balance at the end of time?
2. What about all the matter; where does that go at the end of time?
3. What else is there in the universe that could power the Big Bang except the big crunch?
Observation already tells us it is at 0 now (within the error margin).
0 at the start, 0 in the middle, 0 at the end. No crunch needed.
But the matter can't just disappear into thin air at the end of time?
Haven't you been reading what I wrote: it's 0 now!
So you are saying matter is exchanged for negative gravitational energy at the end of time? How exactly?
It already has been, that is what I keep trying to tell you. That is how we can have a universe with matter, with dE/dt=0, and with 0 total energy.
I'm not clear what you mean. What exactly is your version of what happens at the beginning and end of time?
That is just it. I don't know. But:
Maybe the universe has a beginning and end, and maybe it doesn't. And to be clear, this isn't my version; this is a common argument in the field that is as least as old as Gamow (1930s).
But consider the Pre-Planck and the Planck epoch as a state of the universe, which is dominated by quantum fluctuations.
They don't need a reason or a cause to occur, this is due to them being a consequence of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.
Questions like, why? Simply do not apply in the intuitive sense to quantum phenomena.
I don't think quantum fluctuations could of caused the big bang:
1. Could a Quantum Fluctuation have occurred infinity long ago?
2. No because there is no way for the effects of the Quantum Fluctuation to get to today (-oo + 1 = -oo)
3. IE There is no way to get from -oo to today, thats the definition of infinity
4. So all Quantum Fluctuations occurred finitely long ago.
5. So there must be a finite total number of Quantum Fluctuations
6. So ‘if it can happen, it will happen’ does not apply
7. So Quantum Fluctuations did not cause the Big Bang
That isn't quite right. Even a single bound particle has an infinite number of modes.
Im not sure what you mean by 'modes' but there is an infinite amount of nothing because actual infinity is impossible as I've already demonstrated.
For what it is worth, the set of natural numbers is an actual infinity (not a potential infinity). But I'd rather not go down that rabbit hole.
The natural numbers are a potential infinity... think of the act of counting, its an iterative process, not an actual infinity.
Actual infinity does not exist and its a very short argument:
There is no quantity X such that X > all other quantities because X +1 > X
If you were to try to construct a list of the natural numbers by counting it would be a potential infinity; but that isn't what I said now is it?