Infinate universes

[achilles12604]

I am totally helpless in this area so I'm looking for some assistance. What supports or debunks this idea? Is there enough to post this thread in science or should I have placed it in the philosophy arena?

Could there be an infinate regression of universes? What of the entropy of the universe and the laws of thermodynamics? Could anything re-organize heat energy into something usefull without losing even more energy in the process?

[Cathar1950]

I think there was never nothing.
God hammered out the cosmos from chaos.
Or as the stories go, God beat the crap out of the sea (or sea beast like Lotan) that ever tries to drowned us.
I say if we are going to believe in myths we should get them right.

Oh yes, God didn't require a first cause, so He has always been around. We mere humans just cannot find Him. Dang this blindness .

It is all right here and clear as water.


http://www.pantheon.org/articles/g/gree ... myths.html

Greek creation myths
by Daphne Elliott
In the beginning, Chaos, an amorphous, gaping void encompassing the entire universe, and surrounded by an unending stream of water ruled by the god Oceanus, was the domain of a goddess named Eurynome, which means "far-ruling" or "wide-wandering".
She was the Goddess of All Things, and desired to make order out of the Chaos. By coupling with a huge and powerful snake, Ophion, or as some legends say, coupling with the North Wind, she gave birth to Eros, god of Love, also known as Protagonus, the "firstborn".

Eurynome separated the sky from the sea by dancing on the waves of Oceanus. In this manner, she created great lands upon which she might wander, a veritable universe, populating it with exotic creatures such as Nymphs, Furies, and Charites as well as with countless beasts and monsters.

Also born out of Chaos were Gaia, called Earth, or Mother Earth, and Uranus, the embodiment of the Sky and the Heavens, as well as Tartarus, god of the sunless and terrible region beneath Gaia, the Earth.

Gaia and Uranus married and gave birth to the Titans, a race of formidable giants, which included a particularly wily giant named Cronus.

In what has become one of the recurrent themes of Greek Mythology, Gaia and Uranus warned Cronus that a son of his would one day overpower him. Cronus therefore swallowed his numerous children by his wife Rhea, to keep that forecast from taking place.

This angered Gaia greatly, so when the youngest son, Zeus, was born, Gaia took a stone, wrapped it in swaddling clothes and offered it to Cronus to swallow. This satisfied Cronus, and Gaia was able to spirit the baby Zeus away to be raised in Crete, far from his grasping father.

In due course, Zeus grew up, came homeward, and got into immediate conflict with the tyrant Cronus, who did not know that this newcomer was his own son. Zeus needed his brothers and sisters help in slaying the tyrant, and Metis, Zeus's first wife, found a way of administering an emetic to Cronus, who then threw up his five previous children, who were Hestia, Demeter, Hera, Hades, and Poseidon. Together they went to battle against their father. The results were that all of his children, led by Zeus, vanquished Cronus forever into Tartarus' domain, the Dark World under the Earth.

Thus, Zeus triumphed over not only his father, and his father's family of Giants, he triumphed over his brothers and sisters as well, dividing up the universe as he fancied, in short, bringing order out of Chaos.

He made himself Supreme God over all, creating a great and beautiful place for his favored gods to live, on Mount Olympus, in Thessaly. All the others were left to fend for themselves in lands below Mount Olympus.

Zeus made himself God of the Sky and all its phenomena, including the clouds as well as the thunderbolts. Hestia became goddess of the Hearth. To his brother Poseidon, he gave the rule of the Sea. Demeter became a goddess of Fertility, Hera (before she married Zeus and became a jealous wife), was goddess of Marriage and Childbirth, while Hades, one of his other brothers, was made god of the Underworld.

Zeus did indeed bring order out of Chaos, but one of his failings was that he did not look kindly upon the people, those creatures that populated the lands over which he reigned. Many were not beautiful, and Zeus had contempt for anyone who was not beautiful. And of course they were not immortal, as the Olympian gods were, and they complained about the lack of good food and the everlasting cold nights. Zeus ignored their complaints, while he and the other gods feasted endlessly on steaming hot game from the surrounding forests, and had great crackling fires in every room of their palaces where they lived in the cold winter.

Enter Prometheus, one of the Titans not vanquished in the war between Zeus and the giants. It is said in many myths that Prometheus had created d a race of people from clay, or that he had combined specks of every living creature, molded them together, and produced a new race, The Common Man. At the very least he was their champion before Zeus.

Fire for cooking and heating was reserved only for the gods to enjoy. Prometheus stole some of the sparks of a glowing fire from the Olympians, so that the people below Olympus could have fire for cooking and warmth in the winter, thus greatly improving their lot in life.

Zeus was furious at this insult to his absolute power, and had Prometheus bound and chained to a mountain, sending an eagle to attack him daily.

Adding insult to injury, Zeus had his fellow Olympian, Hephaestus, fashion a wicked but beautiful creature to torment Prometheus. It was a woman, whom they named Pandora, which means "all gifts". She was given a precious and beautiful box, which she was told not to open, but curiosity got the better of her, and out flew "all the evils that plague men." The only "gift" that stayed in the box was "Hope".

So, from "far-ruling" Eurynome to the creation of the Common Man, Greek creation myths are inextricably filled with difficulties, though often ameliorated by the gift of Hope. A myriad of other myths tell of the joys and adventures of great heroes and heroines, other gods and goddesses, as well as fantastic creatures from all parts of ancient Greece.

Apologia

Every myth, Greek or otherwise, that has ever been told or written, varies in the telling. The basic themes are repeated in many of them, but details, even story lines will differ considerably, from village to village, eon to eon.

When one understands that the myths have been told for many centuries before being written down, which first occurred about 800 BCE, one can relish

[achilles12604]

I have to add something here, you can torture me about it later. Why do you assume something cannot come from nothing? Based on Christianity, God created the universe from nothing. The megaverse theory assumes nothing less. In fact, it doesn't even assume that much. It doesn't attempt to explain something from nothing. Something was already in existence, regardless of how small the elementary particles were, regardless of what the constants are, etc... It give equal credence to each possiblity. It places no special or unique rights of superiority to one over the other.

Bear with me for a sec because I have to be VERY careful how to word my response so as to avoid misunderstandings.

Why do you assume something cannot come from nothing?

In general, without an outside influence, nothing always stays nothing. This is a standard of science and is mirrored in countless laws and experiments. One that comes readily to mind is Newton's laws of motion.

Now I do not totally assume that something can not come from nothing. I believe what I mean is (and each word is very important to consider), that for something to come from nothing, there must be a cause. Or how I worded it originally was Everything which begins must have a cause.

Based on Christianity, God created the universe from nothing.

True. However if god existed then there was SOMETHING which affected the nothing. If nothing affected the nothing, then nothing would have happened.

The megaverse theory assumes nothing less. In fact, it doesn't even assume that much. It doesn't attempt to explain something from nothing. Something was already in existence, regardless of how small the elementary particles were, regardless of what the constants are, etc...

Ok. I am simply pointing out that we would need to discover the origins of those first particles. If they were in fact eternal, then they would in essence be "god" as they were the first cause and the author of all life.

No matter how we twist the FC around, ultimately it must have the same characteristics as those attributed to God.

But we have a first cause for the universe without defaulting to supernaturalism. The Big Bang comes to mind.

Ok so what caused the big bang to occur if in fact this is what happened? The big bang was an effect. What was its cause?

Now you have stepped outside the realms of the megaverse theory.

You lost me. HUH?

[Confused]

[quote="Confused]
Now you have stepped outside the realms of the megaverse theory.

You lost me. HUH?[/quote]

The megaverse theory doens't attempt to explain what caused the Big Bang. Only the universe. When you attempt to use it outside of its original design to explain something else, you will always hit a brick wall. Let me review: The megaverse theory has an initial point, the big bang theory is merely the description of our universe, but it doesn't presuppose that ours is unique or that ours predates any other universe. It simply addresses our universe. The megaverse theory goes beyond it but still doesn't presuppose what predated it or what caused it. It simply states that many exist with different laws, elementary particles, constants, etc.... It cannot explain what it wasn't designed to explain. To do so would be equivalent with ascribing supernaturalism to naturalism or vice versa. Enter relgion.

I think I am over tired because I am seriously losing sync.

[achilles12604]

[quote="Confused]
Now you have stepped outside the realms of the megaverse theory.

You lost me. HUH?

The megaverse theory doens't attempt to explain what caused the Big Bang. Only the universe. When you attempt to use it outside of its original design to explain something else, you will always hit a brick wall. Let me review: The megaverse theory has an initial point, the big bang theory is merely the description of our universe, but it doesn't presuppose that ours is unique or that ours predates any other universe. It simply addresses our universe. The megaverse theory goes beyond it but still doesn't presuppose what predated it or what caused it. It simply states that many exist with different laws, elementary particles, constants, etc.... It cannot explain what it wasn't designed to explain. To do so would be equivalent with ascribing supernaturalism to naturalism or vice versa. Enter relgion.

I think I am over tired because I am seriously losing sync.[/quote]

Ah ok I'm tracking again.

Yes you were correct at that point I jumped out of this universe and into the mega/multi/whatever verse. I also at this point jumped into the FC for this universe and this of course leads me right back to our original discussion.

Taking your view, the multiverse would have been the FC for this universe.

In the conversation I am having with QED I think (I'm never sure) that we have reached an agreement that anything pertaining to the FC of this universe, whatever that FC might be, is untestable since it is beyond what we are able to test.

Now this is not the same thing as the god of Gaps theory because in GOG I would need to say that Since Science can not currently explain it it must be God.

this is not what I am putting forth. I am saying that at this current time, GOD is just as plausible of an option to fill the FC role and the multiverse, megaverse or anything else. I am also leaving open the door, in the event of a multiverse or whatever, for god to have impacted and begun that universe. since this is a non-falsifyable position at this time due to our lack of any knowledge about this other universe, all options are on equal footing and each one, including God, are just as plausible as the next.

[Confused]

[quote="Confused]
Now you have stepped outside the realms of the megaverse theory.

You lost me. HUH?

The megaverse theory doens't attempt to explain what caused the Big Bang. Only the universe. When you attempt to use it outside of its original design to explain something else, you will always hit a brick wall. Let me review: The megaverse theory has an initial point, the big bang theory is merely the description of our universe, but it doesn't presuppose that ours is unique or that ours predates any other universe. It simply addresses our universe. The megaverse theory goes beyond it but still doesn't presuppose what predated it or what caused it. It simply states that many exist with different laws, elementary particles, constants, etc.... It cannot explain what it wasn't designed to explain. To do so would be equivalent with ascribing supernaturalism to naturalism or vice versa. Enter religion.

I think I am over tired because I am seriously losing sync.

Ah ok I'm tracking again.

Yes you were correct at that point I jumped out of this universe and into the mega/multi/whatever verse. I also at this point jumped into the FC for this universe and this of course leads me right back to our original discussion.

Taking your view, the multiverse would have been the FC for this universe.

In the conversation I am having with QED I think (I'm never sure) that we have reached an agreement that anything pertaining to the FC of this universe, whatever that FC might be, is untestable since it is beyond what we are able to test.

Now this is not the same thing as the god of Gaps theory because in GOG I would need to say that Since Science can not currently explain it it must be God.

this is not what I am putting forth. I am saying that at this current time, GOD is just as plausible of an option to fill the FC role and the multiverse, megaverse or anything else. I am also leaving open the door, in the event of a multiverse or whatever, for god to have impacted and begun that universe. since this is a non-falsifyable position at this time due to our lack of any knowledge about this other universe, all options are on equal footing and each one, including God, are just as plausible as the next.

[/quote]
Sort of. The megaverse doesn't imply a first cause at all, but it could be the first cause of this universe. But QED and you are correct in that it is untestable at this time. It isn't the God of Gaps because there is the presupposition that just because it cannot go from theoretical physics to experimental physics now doesn't mean it can't in the future. At this point, one could insert the GOG for lack of anything else, but if we do this we commit the error of moving past natural into supernatural, past physical into metaphysical, and past the intent the design of the megaverse theory is meant to explore. Worse, we move past attempting to explain it by natural means into accepting it as supernatural. All future breakthroughs stop here since God is untestable in science. This is exactly why science and religion cannot explain one another.

[achilles12604]

Sort of. The megaverse doesn't imply a first cause at all, but it could be the first cause of this universe. But QED and you are correct in that it is untestable at this time. It isn't the God of Gaps because there is the presupposition that just because it cannot go from theoretical physics to experimental physics now doesn't mean it can't in the future. At this point, one could insert the GOG for lack of anything else, but if we do this we commit the error of moving past natural into supernatural, past physical into metaphysical, and past the intent the design of the megaverse theory is meant to explore. Worse, we move past attempting to explain it by natural means into accepting it as supernatural. All future breakthroughs stop here since God is untestable in science. This is exactly why science and religion cannot explain one another.

Sort of. The megaverse doesn't imply a first cause at all, but it could be the first cause of this universe.

this idea is the one I am currently challenging and I am going to discuss it with QED.

Here is a source on it provided courtesy of goat

Notice this part in particular.

The second law says entropy (a measure of disorder) can't be destroyed. But if entropy increases from one oscillation to the next, the universe becomes larger with each cycle. "The universe would grow like a runaway snowball," Frampton said. Each oscillation will also become successively longer. "Extrapolating backwards in time, this implies that the oscillations before our present one were shorter and shorter. This leads inevitably to a Big Bang," he said.

The Eternal Megaverse leads backwards to a beginning point. Here is how they suggest getting around this obvious problem.

Frampton and Baum circumvent the Big Bang by postulating that, at the turnaround, any remaining entropy is in patches too remote for interaction. Having each "causal patch" become a separate universe allows each universe to contract essentially empty of matter and entropy. "The presence of any matter creates insuperable difficulties with contraction," Frampton said. "The idea of coming back empty is the most important ingredient of this new cyclic model."

While this is beginning to sound like a stretch (pun intended), it also depends on what QED and I are currently discussing, nothing being seperated into something.

and so now we have been brought up to date.

All future breakthroughs stop here since God is untestable in science. This is exactly why science and religion cannot explain one another.

This I agree with.

[Confused]

Sort of. The megaverse doesn't imply a first cause at all, but it could be the first cause of this universe. But QED and you are correct in that it is untestable at this time. It isn't the God of Gaps because there is the presupposition that just because it cannot go from theoretical physics to experimental physics now doesn't mean it can't in the future. At this point, one could insert the GOG for lack of anything else, but if we do this we commit the error of moving past natural into supernatural, past physical into metaphysical, and past the intent the design of the megaverse theory is meant to explore. Worse, we move past attempting to explain it by natural means into accepting it as supernatural. All future breakthroughs stop here since God is untestable in science. This is exactly why science and religion cannot explain one another.

Sort of. The megaverse doesn't imply a first cause at all, but it could be the first cause of this universe.

this idea is the one I am currently challenging and I am going to discuss it with QED.

Here is a source on it provided courtesy of goat

Notice this part in particular.

The second law says entropy (a measure of disorder) can't be destroyed. But if entropy increases from one oscillation to the next, the universe becomes larger with each cycle. "The universe would grow like a runaway snowball," Frampton said. Each oscillation will also become successively longer. "Extrapolating backwards in time, this implies that the oscillations before our present one were shorter and shorter. This leads inevitably to a Big Bang," he said.

The Eternal Megaverse leads backwards to a beginning point. Here is how they suggest getting around this obvious problem.

Frampton and Baum circumvent the Big Bang by postulating that, at the turnaround, any remaining entropy is in patches too remote for interaction. Having each "causal patch" become a separate universe allows each universe to contract essentially empty of matter and entropy. "The presence of any matter creates insuperable difficulties with contraction," Frampton said. "The idea of coming back empty is the most important ingredient of this new cyclic model."

While this is beginning to sound like a stretch (pun intended), it also depends on what QED and I are currently discussing, nothing being seperated into something.

and so now we have been brought up to date.

All future breakthroughs stop here since God is untestable in science. This is exactly why science and religion cannot explain one another.

This I agree with.

The only thing I can say is to keep in mind that the laws of thermodynamics may be relevant in this universe, but not in others. Simply because we cannot test to see if other universes exist at this time, let alone share the same laws as here, we cannot assume that our universe was created before or after another universe. The big bang is tracked to ours, but may have been caused by a collision of two other universes, annihilating each others matter with antimatter, leaving only enough imbalance to create this universe. Either way, our current megaverse theory is relative to trying to explain our own, not what pre existed ours.

[achilles12604]

Sort of. The megaverse doesn't imply a first cause at all, but it could be the first cause of this universe. But QED and you are correct in that it is untestable at this time. It isn't the God of Gaps because there is the presupposition that just because it cannot go from theoretical physics to experimental physics now doesn't mean it can't in the future. At this point, one could insert the GOG for lack of anything else, but if we do this we commit the error of moving past natural into supernatural, past physical into metaphysical, and past the intent the design of the megaverse theory is meant to explore. Worse, we move past attempting to explain it by natural means into accepting it as supernatural. All future breakthroughs stop here since God is untestable in science. This is exactly why science and religion cannot explain one another.

Sort of. The megaverse doesn't imply a first cause at all, but it could be the first cause of this universe.

this idea is the one I am currently challenging and I am going to discuss it with QED.

Here is a source on it provided courtesy of goat

Notice this part in particular.

The second law says entropy (a measure of disorder) can't be destroyed. But if entropy increases from one oscillation to the next, the universe becomes larger with each cycle. "The universe would grow like a runaway snowball," Frampton said. Each oscillation will also become successively longer. "Extrapolating backwards in time, this implies that the oscillations before our present one were shorter and shorter. This leads inevitably to a Big Bang," he said.

The Eternal Megaverse leads backwards to a beginning point. Here is how they suggest getting around this obvious problem.

Frampton and Baum circumvent the Big Bang by postulating that, at the turnaround, any remaining entropy is in patches too remote for interaction. Having each "causal patch" become a separate universe allows each universe to contract essentially empty of matter and entropy. "The presence of any matter creates insuperable difficulties with contraction," Frampton said. "The idea of coming back empty is the most important ingredient of this new cyclic model."

While this is beginning to sound like a stretch (pun intended), it also depends on what QED and I are currently discussing, nothing being seperated into something.

and so now we have been brought up to date.

All future breakthroughs stop here since God is untestable in science. This is exactly why science and religion cannot explain one another.

This I agree with.

The only thing I can say is to keep in mind that the laws of thermodynamics may be relevant in this universe, but not in others. Simply because we cannot test to see if other universes exist at this time, let alone share the same laws as here, we cannot assume that our universe was created before or after another universe. The big bang is tracked to ours, but may have been caused by a collision of two other universes, annihilating each others matter with antimatter, leaving only enough imbalance to create this universe. Either way, our current megaverse theory is relative to trying to explain our own, not what pre existed ours.

Granted, accepted and even quoted by myself in other places.

[QED]

Sort of. The megaverse doesn't imply a first cause at all, but it could be the first cause of this universe.

this idea is the one I am currently challenging and I am going to discuss it with QED.

Here is a source on it provided courtesy of goat

Notice this part in particular.

The second law says entropy (a measure of disorder) can't be destroyed. But if entropy increases from one oscillation to the next, the universe becomes larger with each cycle. "The universe would grow like a runaway snowball," Frampton said. Each oscillation will also become successively longer. "Extrapolating backwards in time, this implies that the oscillations before our present one were shorter and shorter. This leads inevitably to a Big Bang," he said.

The Eternal Megaverse leads backwards to a beginning point. Here is how they suggest getting around this obvious problem.

Frampton and Baum circumvent the Big Bang by postulating that, at the turnaround, any remaining entropy is in patches too remote for interaction. Having each "causal patch" become a separate universe allows each universe to contract essentially empty of matter and entropy. "The presence of any matter creates insuperable difficulties with contraction," Frampton said. "The idea of coming back empty is the most important ingredient of this new cyclic model."

While this is beginning to sound like a stretch (pun intended), it also depends on what QED and I are currently discussing, nothing being seperated into something.

But isn't that paper, like this other one, just re-defining the Big-Bang?

[achilles12604]

Sort of. The megaverse doesn't imply a first cause at all, but it could be the first cause of this universe.

this idea is the one I am currently challenging and I am going to discuss it with QED.

Here is a source on it provided courtesy of goat

Notice this part in particular.

The second law says entropy (a measure of disorder) can't be destroyed. But if entropy increases from one oscillation to the next, the universe becomes larger with each cycle. "The universe would grow like a runaway snowball," Frampton said. Each oscillation will also become successively longer. "Extrapolating backwards in time, this implies that the oscillations before our present one were shorter and shorter. This leads inevitably to a Big Bang," he said.

The Eternal Megaverse leads backwards to a beginning point. Here is how they suggest getting around this obvious problem.

Frampton and Baum circumvent the Big Bang by postulating that, at the turnaround, any remaining entropy is in patches too remote for interaction. Having each "causal patch" become a separate universe allows each universe to contract essentially empty of matter and entropy. "The presence of any matter creates insuperable difficulties with contraction," Frampton said. "The idea of coming back empty is the most important ingredient of this new cyclic model."

While this is beginning to sound like a stretch (pun intended), it also depends on what QED and I are currently discussing, nothing being seperated into something.

But isn't that paper, like this other one, just re-defining the Big-Bang?

Reading through it they claim to have found a way around the big bang although it requires certain aspects which contradict previous discoveries and theorums.