[Bill S]

"We're here because we are" is surely the diametric opposite of the anthropic principle, which states that everything else is there in order for us to be here.

I was thinking of the “weak” version, which simply holds that the current Universe must be as it is to allow the existence of intelligent observers. IMO, the “strong” version is thinly disguised theology.

I don't see any disjoint between an infinite and fundamentally unchanging universe with occasional hiccups,

 

This must depend on what you mean by “fundamentally”.  If you mean that an infinite universe is usually unchanging, but not always, I have a serious problem with that. 

If you mean that “unchangingness” is an essential feature of the universe; then, how can “hiccups” occur?

I agree, entirely, with the rest of #79.

[Halc]

That’s fine, but it doesn’t address the question of how the “continuum” could exist.

I understand what you're asking, and no, none of the immediate above discussion touches on it.  Physics is not in the business of answering such things.

Is there a law of physics that says: there must always have been “something?

No, not at all. It's just not a physics/science question, despite all the diversions in that direction for the last several posts. The answer needs to be compatible with physics, but it isn't going to come from there. Try logic instead.

Straightforward statement of the Anthropomorphic Principle, but still misses the main point.

Anthropic principle (weak) explains why the tuning is so nice (refuting teleological argument), but it has nothing to do with why there is something.

[Bill S]

I understand what you're asking, and no, none of the immediate above discussion touches on it.  Physics is not in

It sounds as though you are saying that physics studies the Universe/cosmos, but is not interested in looking at any possible mechanism that might explain the existence of the Universe/cosmos. 

That seems a bit like studying the internal combustion engine, but refusing to consider manufacturing issues. 

Anthropic principle (weak) explains why the tuning is so nice (refuting teleological argument), but it has nothing to do with why there is something.

Point taken.  I could agree, entirely, if you changed the second “why” to “how”.  Never did really like the AP.

[alancalverd]

If you mean that “unchangingness” is an essential feature of the universe; then, how can “hiccups” occur?

Long term, a bucket of water is a bucket of water, but we can detect transient local order with the formation of various polymers and voronoi polyhedra. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voronoi_diagram  is the seed of an idea about evanescent order in an infinite universe, but I haven't developed it formally.

You can also get some insight from Hawking's "Black holes and baby universes" where local creation and re-creation occur in an infinite matrix of bits of stuff.

If you like the idea of every particle having an antiparticle then you can imagine the instantaneous creation ex nihilo of a universe and its effective mirror image with a sum energy of zero, but these are more exotic than "everyday" antiparticles because for a zero sum, they must have negative mass. Let's call them negaticles. Where does that take us? Intriguingly, if two particles with positive mass are gravitationally attracted to one another (experimental observation!) then we might expect a particle and a negaticle to repel (hypothesis). Perhaps what is causing the expansion of the observable universe is the intervening negaticles, which themselves are clumping together.... So we can devise an OU with a beginning and possibly an end, derived instantaneously from nothing at all. Mad speculation, but remember you read it here first, and it is in principle open to investigation (science)!

[Halc]

I understand what you're asking, and no, none of the immediate above discussion touches on it.  Physics is not in

I finished that sentence in an edit above.

It sounds as though you are saying that physics studies the Universe/cosmos, but is not interested in looking at any possible mechanism that might explain the existence of the Universe/cosmos.

There can't be a 'mechanism'.  If there was one (like Carroll is describing a mechanism for our big bang), then it is part of the cosmos, and needs to explain itself. That's the problem with saying God did it. Doesn't explain why there is a god and not no-god. It doesn't matter if the 'cosmos' had some sort of edge that can be designated as 'first', or it 'was always there', Neither case explains its existence vs its nonexistence.

That seems a bit like studying the internal combustion engine, but refusing to consider manufacturing issues.

That's a physics question.  What caused this internal combusion engine?  Such a thing is an object, not a cosmos, and objects have creation mechanisms that are separate from the object.  I have such a mechanism.  The cosmos cannot, by definition.

I could agree, entirely, if you changed the second “why” to “how”.  Never did really like the AP.

Don't care what work you choose.  I said I know what you're asking.

If find that most questions like that are begging a set of biases, and the first thing is to identify those biases.
For instance, the second big question that drove me nuts for years was "Why am I me".  It also was begging an assumption that there was an 'I' that sort of won a lottery and got to be something pretty awesome like 'me' and not something far more likely but lame like a bug or a dust mote.  That's a hard bias to drop, but the question wasn't baffling anymore once I did it.  The same process needs to take place with "why is there something".

[alancalverd]

"The universe must be as it is to allow the existence of an intelligent observer" seems like a good summary of weak anthropism but it is frankly meaningless or vanity.

If the universe were not as it is, we would not be as we are, but there is no reason to dismiss the possibility of even a marginally different universe in which some Martian pointed his tentacle at the sky and said "I wonder what's going on up there? And why isn't that big planet with one moon blue and covered with octopus, like ours?" Indeed there is every reason to think it may have happened, when the universe was not as it is now. 

The alternative interpretation is an active rendering of "must be", suggesting that the diameter of the ninth planet from the third sun in Klingon Minor, 3 billion light years away, is critical to the evolution of life on earth, which is straining the credulity a bit, especially if you like the idea of a Creator who could just say "let there be light" and avoid all the complexities of physics and chemistry.

[Bill S]

There’s some fascinating and educational stuff in this thread, the last three posts being good examples.  Just need the time to read them properly, and let the ideas percolate before I try to respond.

Just an aside: I’ve made numerous attempts to get this sort of discussion going; then along comes a first timer and hits the jackpot.  Thanks Akabiz, I hope you’re enjoying this.

[Bill S]

Long term, a bucket of water is a bucket of water, but we can detect transient local order with the formation of various polymers and voronoi polyhedra. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voronoi_diagram  is the seed of an idea about evanescent order in an infinite universe, but I haven't developed it formally.

Voronoi diagrams have come a long way since the identification of a source of cholera, and I don’t pretend to understand the maths, but “evanescent order in an infinite universe” is possible only if you treat infinity as a number.  Order requires separation and distinction. This is possible, only if infinity is divisible. How do you divide something that is not numerical? 

[Bill S]

If you like the idea of every particle having an antiparticle then you can imagine the instantaneous creation ex nihilo of a universe and its effective mirror image with a sum energy of zero,

My Latin may have been rusting for approaching 50 yrs, but I still think “ex nililo” means “from nothing”.   Wouldn’t you say that particles and antiparticles were “something”?  Don’t they have to exist in order to bring about this wondrous creation?

[Halc]

If you like the idea of every particle having an antiparticle then you can imagine the instantaneous creation ex nihilo of a universe and its effective mirror image with a sum energy of zero,

My Latin may have been rusting for approaching 50 yrs, but I still think “ex nililo” means “from nothing”.   Wouldn’t you say that particles and antiparticles were “something”?  Don’t they have to exist in order to bring about this wondrous creation?

It also requires positive energy to create a particle/antiparticle pair.  Antimatter doesn't have negative energy.  Graviational potential energy is negative, which is why the big bang doesn't seem to violate energy conservation, but yes Bill, it still isn't something from nothing, even if the total sum of mass in the universe is zero.

[alancalverd]

I wasn't talking about conventional everyday antiparticles! Negaticles are hypothetical particles with negative mass but otherwise identical properties to normicles like electrons and positrons.

[alancalverd]

How do you divide something that is not numerical? 

We've discussed this elsewhere. A denumerable infinity already contains divisions, and an infinite continuum can be sliced as easily as any cake, but many more times.

[Halc]

I wasn't talking about conventional everyday antiparticles! Negaticles are hypothetical particles with negative mass but otherwise identical properties to normicles like electrons and positrons.

They have asymmetric properties with normal mass, so not identical.  Given a ball of each, one could tell which was which.  Given two identical masses exerting gravity on each other, both objects will accelerate in the direction of the positive mass.  I tried to follow the proof that this sort of thing violated conservation laws, but could not.  Reactionless thrust!  Anyway, perhaps there is a contradiction, but negative mass does indeed seem to be a valid solution to the equations.
A negative mass planet would not hold itself together by gravity, so a universe of it would hardly be a mirror of this one.

This topic deserves its own thread since there so much fun to it.

[Bill S]

Lengthy threads, like this, are inclined to drift, then fizzle out without anyone even attempting to pull the ideas together.  The OP is probably the best person to do this, but I think I’ve hijacked the thread, and have certainly learned from it, so, hopefully Akabiz won’t mind if I try some “pulling together”.

I’m struggling to find time to stay in discussions, so am aiming for some sort of “resolution”.

Long posts tend to attract answers/comments relating to specific points, only, ignoring other, possibly relevant, points.  I’m going to try the “one step at a time” approach. 

First, three questions, with suggested answers; and an invitation to anyone who disagrees to say so/why.  I know these questions have been asked before and will probably be asked again, but, hopefully, not by me.

1. Is infinity a number? 
    No.

2. Is eternity a length of time? 
    No.

3. To what extent is infinity/eternity amenable to mathematical manipulation?   
    Only in so far as it can be manipulated in time.  E.g. An “infinite” sequence can be defined, and manipulated, only in the context of time. 

[Halc]

Lengthy threads, like this, are inclined to drift, then fizzle out without anyone even attempting to pull the ideas together.  The OP is probably the best person to do this, but I think I’ve hijacked the thread, and have certainly learned from it, so, hopefully Akabiz won’t mind if I try some “pulling together”.

Akabiz seems to have moved on.  It's kind of your discussion at this point.

First, three questions, with suggested answers; and an invitation to anyone who disagrees to say so/why.  I know these questions have been asked before and will probably be asked again, but, hopefully, not by me.

1. Is infinity a number? 
    No.

2. Is eternity a length of time? 
    No.

Effectively the same question as #1.  'Eternal' has multiple meanings, only one of which is 'for all eternity', i.e. 'for an unbounded amount of time'.  I tend not to mean that when I use the term eternal.  I take the meaning from 'eternalism' which essentially 'outside of time'.

3. To what extent is infinity/eternity amenable to mathematical manipulation?   
    Only in so far as it can be manipulated in time.  E.g. An “infinite” sequence can be defined, and manipulated, only in the context of time.

There is a lot of mathematics on the subject.  Just because you can't meaningfully add three to it doesn't mean it is not amenable to mathematical manipulation.  Hilbert's infinite hotel is a great example of the sort of manipulation that can be done in this area.

All that said, I find discussion of infinity to be off-track to a discussion of why not nothing.  Even those that posit infinite past (lack of first cause) have no explanation for its being there vs it not being there.

[alancalverd]

A negative mass planet would not hold itself together by gravity, so a universe of it would hardly be a mirror of this one.

Ah, but it would, since negative masses have negative gravity.  -1 x -1 = 1

My use of "identical" was a bit loose. What I meant was a complementary universe of negaleptons and negahadrons with charge, spin etc  the same as their observed counterparts, but with negative mass.

[Bill S]

  'Eternal' has multiple meanings, only one of which is 'for all eternity'…

Colloquial usage aside, what else could “eternal” mean?

  i.e. 'for an unbounded amount of time'.

From the fact that you didn’t object to my answer to Q2, I assumed you agreed that eternity is not a length of time.  It seems my assumption was wrong.   Perhaps you would clarify this.

I take the meaning from 'eternalism' which essentially 'outside of time'.

Could be I’m having a “senior moment”, but I am finding it hard to equate 'for an unbounded amount of time' with 'outside of time'.

[Halc]

A negative mass planet would not hold itself together by gravity, so a universe of it would hardly be a mirror of this one.

Ah, but it would, since negative masses have negative gravity.  -1 x -1 = 1

That function (F=GMm/r² for instance) computes force, not acceleration.  Yes, two negative masses exert positive (attraction) force on each other, but a negative mass accelerates in the opposite direction as the force applied to it.
F=ma, or a = F/m where F is positive but m and thus a are negative.  The physics of such a world would be quite different than the one we know, but I actually find it hard to identify a contradiction.

[Bill S]

Just starting to pull some thought together, with obvious input from other posters.  I start with some of the problems of language.

Expressing the idea that there was never nothing is not as straightforward as it might seem at first glance.

Start with “there was never a time when there was nothing”, and reason that time is something, therefore, if there were nothing, any concept of time would be irrelevant.  This leaves: “There was never nothing”.
 
The past tense, implies a statement that there is not a time in which this “thing” did not exist, but if time is not part of infinity, it is meaningless to reference times in relation to the existence of the infinite cosmos.
Reasonable as that might be, “there is never nothing” seems distinctly odd.

Presumably, the true pedant would also take issue with “never”, on the grounds that it is an abbreviation of “not ever”, which implies passage of time.  Dispensing with “never” leaves us with “there is nothing”; which, manifestly, is not quite what is needed. 

Talking of a “mechanism” by which a finite universe might “emerge” from an infinite cosmos, is another minefield. If the cosmos is infinite/eternal, then no mechanism can operate in the cosmos, because there is no time in which any sort of operation can take place.

“Emerge” can also be cited as problematic.  The action of emergence involves change, and change requires time. 

All of these illustrate the ever-present language difficulty.  They also demonstrate the fact that it is very easy to adopt a pattern of thought that is so influenced by our, necessarily, 3+1D environment that it precludes a real appreciation of the infinite.

Perhaps the lesson to draw from this is that we have to make the best of our finite-based language, take care to be as precise as possible, and smile benignly at obfuscators. 

“You know what I mean, ‘Arry?”

[Halc]

Start with “there was never a time when there was nothing”, and reason that time is something, therefore, if there were nothing, any concept of time would be irrelevant.  This leaves: “There was never nothing”.

Without something to change, time would be meaningless.  If you picture a sort of external time that flows along despite the lack of anything to change, then you still have time existing, which is something.  So it seems that asserting the opposite, that there was a time when there was nothing, is self contradictory.
 
As a relativist (as opposed to a realist), I don't think it makes syntactic sense to say a thing exists or not.  It exists relative to something else.  That's what the word means.  It means something like 'is a member of'.  So 'why is there something?' becomes 'why is something a member of something else?".

I find it obfuscating to complicate any of that with temporal references.  Sure, thing X can be a member of temporal thing Y between moments of creation and destruction and not at other times, but that seems needlessly more complex than just saying X is a member of Y.  So I (my perceived worldline) exist in (relative to) this world, but I don't exist in 1920 (a subset of this world).  My worldline isn't that long.  Since I have a finite duration in the temporal set Y (what I call 'this world'), I am a created thing.

Presumably, the true pedant would also take issue with “never”, on the grounds that it is an abbreviation of “not ever”, which implies passage of time.

Disagree. The word implies a temporal ordering, but not passage. It just means 'at no time' but gives no implied reference to a present moment or flow.  It is only a valid reference to a temporal object/set, so it doesn't make sense to say "In the set of integers, 5 is never greater than 7" since the set of integers is not a temporal set.

Talking of a “mechanism” by which a finite universe might “emerge” from an infinite cosmos, is another minefield. If the cosmos is infinite/eternal, then no mechanism can operate in the cosmos, because there is no time in which any sort of operation can take place.

The cosmos contains time, not the other way around.  Thus things can emerge within it since there are times without the thing (1920) and times with the thing (1990).  Emerge means there was a time when it wasn't present, and a subsequent time when it was.  An eternal temporal structure still has time, it just doesn't exist within that time. Time exists within it.

Cellular automata is a great example of such a structure. A lot of my modelling is based on such simple examples.

“Emerge” can also be cited as problematic.  The action of emergence involves change, and change requires time.

Exactly so.  The state of the world in 1920 is not the same as the state in 1990, so there is change over time.

Perhaps the lesson to draw from this is that we have to make the best of our finite-based language, take care to be as precise as possible, and smile benignly at obfuscators.

I try my best.  If you find my language above sort of awkward in places, it's because I'm trying to be as precise as possible.