Refuting The Kalam Argument *1

Sorry for the volume, please turn it up! (dont want to miss my ramblings, right?)


Premise 2:
- 'An infinite number of things cannot exist' Not true, infinity is a mathamatical construct meant to describe mathamatical 'things', not real, physical 'things'. Applying infinity to any non mathamatical scenarion will always lead to an absurdity.

-'traversing the infinite' you do it everytime you move your body, it happens everytime it rains. Not so impossible at all

-'expansion of the universe' Not a proven fact in the Hubble sense due to redshift cause uncertainties. The Big Bang itself is a slowly dying theory propped up by more and more adhoc nonsense

- 'Entropy' The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics cannot be applied to an open system, such as an infinite universe. Its foolish to use this argument attempting to prove the impossibility of an infinite universe. If anything it is a fact in FAVOUR of an infinite universe

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• big
• bang
• universe
• hubble
• redshift
• cosmology
• god
• creation
• philosophy
• physics
• thermodynamics

[SaintJimmyI]

That's what veritas was getting at. Infinity can't exist it's JUST a concept

[Tefer65i]

Thats right infinity is a procces, and as such can exist just fine. Veritas argues beutifully that an 'actual' infinity of 'things' can't exist, much better than I can.

[prodprod]

While I don't generally find myself defending Veritas, the two issues aren't really comparable. The infinitesimal subdivision of a finite distance has been resolved in theoretical terms and also through physics - namely that the sub-atomic world *isn't* actually infinitely divisible.

That doesn't tell us if a given event taking place in the infinitely distant future will ever occur (how could it?). And if not, how could one that took place in the infinitely distant past have occurred?

[Birdieupon]

The impossibility of an infinite time-scale hasn't been refuted.

In fact, you appear to *support* premise two.

It is the very fact that you *can* move your hand from A to B which distinguishes between potential infinites (abstract ideas) and actual infinites (material, quantifiable entities). You can move your hand because an infinite distance between them *only* exists as an idea.

Add to this the age of the universe as 15bn years plus the problem of an infinite past resulting in heat death!

[mtheoryrules]

Boundless simply means either A space time is negatively curved, B it is flat or C it is positively curved.

The term boundless simply means that in any such case one will not encounter a boundary.

Cosmology assumes that if you could traverse the universe faster than the rate of its expansion you will continue in infinitely on a single vector never reaching your starting point or until you reach the point you started from, never encountering a boundary.

[mtheoryrules]

Well quantum field theories have strong evidence that the speperate fields are simply symmetry broken versions of the same fundamental force.

I am not asking about this I already know about gauge symmetry and higgs fields.

I was asking about another possible symmetry break resulting in a stronger version of gravitation.

Finite in terms of energy/matter, not space-time dimensions.

Much of modern cosmology assumes that the universe is finite in terms of energy/matter.

[Tefer65i]

The fields may be in transition, but from what? and to what?

Mind you these theories do not preclude a finite expanding cosmological view (big bang)or a constant eternal infinite universe

[Tefer65i]

nothing can be finite and boundless, its like something being alive and dead at the same time, or an intelligent creationist; it cant happen.

The idea youve hit on, the fundamental four forces being connnected to something deeper, is the essence of modern field theories. The idea is that forces are nothing more than particles being exchanged, and particles are nothing but disturbances in 'fields'. Now because of the nature of field theories ot much is known about the fields themselves

[mtheoryrules]

Inflationary cosmology does not assume a finite but boundless universe it assumes an infinite universe with finite matter/energy.

Also I had I thought you might appreciate, I was thinking if the fundamental forces of our universe are the result of phase transitions and are really the work of a single force, then what happens if our universe continues to expand and cool?

Might an even stronger expression of gravity manifest from another phase transition?

Could the crunch be revived?

Thoughts?

[Tefer65i]

First 'I' didnt have any premises in this video, so they cant be refuted, because they dont exist.

I would disagree and say a finite but boundless universe is an oxymoron.

Again you do 'NOT' seem to understand the word infinity, it refers to a 'PROCESS' not a 'NUMBER'. The words 'infinite amount' also amount to an oxymoron.