[alancalverd]

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.

So we can make a zero-energy universe by separating particles and negaticles in a big bang, and then the particles coalesce into atoms and galaxies, whilst the negaticles push them and themselves apart. Not bad, eh? We have an expanding observable universe driven by increasingly rareified unobservable dark negastuff which disperses along with the observable stuff, so it never stops expanding. All created ex nihilo and exactly as observed, with no need for an old man with a beard to make it happen.

Tomorrow, I think I'll fix Brexit, then explain the Marie Celeste after lunch.

[Bill S]

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.

I think we agree, thus far.

….. 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.

If the cosmos is infinite, and all that there is, there is nothing to which its existence can be relative.  By your definition, therefore, it doesn’t exist.  (?) 

The word implies a temporal ordering, but not passage.

 

1. at no time in the past or future; not ever.

Perhaps life would be simpler if every word had a universally accepted definition, but the “inner poet” says: Boring!

The cosmos contains time, not the other way around.

Where did I say that the cosmos is contained in time?  If I gave that impression, it was unintentional. 

An eternal temporal structure still has time, it just doesn't exist within that time. Time exists within it.

Am I mis-interpreting this, or does it say that eternity is a length of time?

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.

I’m sorry if you took my comment personally, it was certainly not meant that way.  As far as language goes, I’m always happy to have my usage challenged. How else does one continue learning?

[Bill S]

Tomorrow, I think I'll fix Brexit, then explain the Marie Celeste after lunch.

What's the betting that you will find the crew of the Marie Celeste before you find those negative masses?
Fix Brexit!  Can I borrow your magic wand when you've done that?

[alancalverd]

Funnily enough, Parliament fixed Brexit three years ago.

Having agreed to abide by the result of the referendum, they then enacted a single law that preserved all existing laws and regulations until such time as they were individually amended or abolished. Thus we could have left the EU the next day, with no change in import tariffs, citizenship, or anything, and simply tweaked the regulations from time to time as the need or opportunity arose. This would have restored the sovereignty of parliament at a stroke, with negligible initial impact on anyone's life and no urgency to reform anything. In the event that the EU  imposed any unreasonable tariff on UK exports, it was entirely in the government's power to immediately ban the import of finished cars and thus destroy the euro (as the EU has just discovered this week), so any trade deals or reformed tariff structures could evolve ad hoc, with the UK negotiating from a position of strength.

Legal or not, BJ's prorogation would have ended the embarrassing and damaging party political sideshow and enacted the will of the majority without harm to anyone or anything (especially sterling). Who knows, Thomas Cook might have been able to pay its bills!

Relevance? Well, it helps to put some numbers to the problem. The number of negaticles that can fit on the head of a pin  cannot be less than the number of truly honorable members of parliament.

[Halc]

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.

If the cosmos is infinite, and all that there is, there is nothing to which its existence can be relative.  By your definition, therefore, it doesn’t exist.  (?) 

By my definition, saying it doesn't exist isn't a syntactically valid statement.  "The cosmos is not a member of."  Incomplete statement.  So no, I'm not saying that, and my definition has nothing to do with the set being infinite or not.  It works with the cosmos being finite as well.

The word ['never'] implies a temporal ordering, but not passage.

1. at no time in the past or future; not ever.

That particular quote does reference a present, yes. It doesn't need to.

Perhaps life would be simpler if every word had a universally accepted definition, but the “inner poet” says: Boring!

Then we'd need to make up new words for discussions like this since I'm not using everyday definitions of most terms here.

The cosmos contains time, not the other way around.

Where did I say that the cosmos is contained in time?  If I gave that impression, it was unintentional.

Any suggestion of the universe being a created thing puts the created thing in time instead of the other way around that physics puts it.  Doesn't mean there isn't time outside the universe, but it isn't the time we know (measured in seconds and having an obvious direction to it).

Anyway, I said that because you said nothing can emerge in the universe, which is only true if there was no time, but there is.  Emergence of something is its presence at one time and lack of presence at a prior time.  The word implies an ordering, yes.  If there is no arrow, then there may be a thing during a finite span of time, but at neither end does it 'emerge' or 'disappear' since neither end is the obvious beginning or end to it.

An eternal temporal structure still has time, it just doesn't exist within that time. Time exists within it.

Am I mis-interpreting this, or does it say that eternity is a length of time?

I didn't say eternity.  I said eternal structure, which is a structure with a temporal component (a structure that contains time), be the time dimension finite or infinite.  Infinite (unbounded) time is eternity.  We've no solid evidence that our time is not bounded at either end, so it is unclear if our universe has an eternity of time.  OK, it appears bounded in the 'past' direction, but that's just 'time as we know it'.

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.

I’m sorry if you took my comment personally, it was certainly not meant that way.  As far as language goes, I’m always happy to have my usage challenged. How else does one continue learning?

I took nothing personally.  I had to say that because I want it clear that I'm trying to be as precise as I can. I'm not quoting somebody else's work here. I've not found a good reference to what I'm describing, which is sort of the extension of the relation interpretaton of QM (RQM, initially Rovelli, 1994) to cosmology and philosophy of mind.

I do my best to identify and question all biases I seem to hold, but some I am unable to give up.  Foremost, I reject any anthropocentric view of things.  If that's true, almost all of observation could be a lie and we've nothing empirical to go on.  Oddly enough, RQM replaces realism with a sort of non-mental idealism, which avoids all the solipsism that arises from a mind-realism view like philosophical idealism, which has other serious issues.

[Bill S]

By my definition, saying it doesn't exist isn't a syntactically valid statement.  "The cosmos is not a member of."  Incomplete statement.  So no, I'm not saying that, and my definition has nothing to do with the set being infinite or not.  It works with the cosmos being finite as well.

Your definition appears to imply that I am claiming that “The cosmos is not a member of." Something.  I make
no such claim. 

If you defend your position in terms of syntax, perhaps we should check your definition of “syntactically". I would define it as relating to the grammatical arrangement of words in a sentence.

I would define “exists” as, to have objective reality or being.

I lack the syntactical elasticity to convert “exists” into “is a member of”. 

Alan said at Re: Do we go round in circles?

Infinity exists in the same way that God exists: it is a word that we use as we wish, to convey whatever is appropriate in context.

Yes we do go round in circles, and will continue to do so as long as we accept “ Humpty Dumpty” linguistics.
 

Anyway, I said that because you said nothing can emerge in the universe,

Where did I say that?

.  If there is no arrow, then there may be a thing during a finite span of time, but at neither end does it 'emerge' or 'disappear' since neither end is the obvious beginning or end to it

How do you define time that has no arrow?  What would be a “finite span” of such time? 

I know there’s more in your post, but I’m out of time.

[Bill S]

I didn't say eternity.  I said eternal structure, which is a structure with a temporal component …. Infinite (unbounded) time is eternity.

 

You distinguish between “eternity” and “eternal structure”.  Before we can look further at this we would need to know if you agree that eternity is not a length of time. 

[Halc]

By my definition, saying it doesn't exist isn't a syntactically valid statement.  "The cosmos is not a member of."  Incomplete statement.  So no, I'm not saying that, and my definition has nothing to do with the set being infinite or not.  It works with the cosmos being finite as well.

Your definition appears to imply that I am claiming that “The cosmos is not a member of." Something.  I make
no such claim. 

I know you made no such claim.  You're using a different definition of 'exist' when asking your question.  I'm saying the question goes away with my definition.

Platonic realism says that something like the number 13 (not the symbol or an instance, but 13 itself) exists.  A non-realist for number would say that abstract things like that are not real.  Using a relational definition of 'exist', I merely assert that 13 is an integer (more formally: 13 is a member of the set of integers), and asking how 13 comes to be real or not real are both meaningless queries since neither meaningless claim is made.

I would define “exists” as, to have objective reality or being.

Right.  I define it differently.  We can use a different word if it helps, but the RQM view is not one of an objective reality, so nothing is a member of it.. Your definition leads to the unanswerable question of 'why does objective reality have something instead of not'. The relational view does not posit an objective reality that may or may not have anything.

Infinity exists in the same way that God exists: it is a word that we use as we wish, to convey whatever is appropriate in context.

Yes we do go round in circles, and will continue to do so as long as we accept “ Humpty Dumpty” linguistics.

Don't know where you got that quote since it doesn't come from anywhere in this topic. It isn't mine.
 

Anyway, I said that because you said nothing can emerge in the universe,

Where did I say that?

Post 98 where you said "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."

You said cosmos, not universe.

.  If there is no arrow, then there may be a thing during a finite span of time, but at neither end does it 'emerge' or 'disappear' since neither end is the obvious beginning or end to it

How do you define time that has no arrow?

Same as regular time, but no obvious direction that is past or future, or cause and effect.  Still measured in something regular like seconds or something, assuming something regular is going on.

What would be a “finite span” of such time?

A finite span means it is terminated somewhere.  I personally think our time is finite in both directions (BB at one end, Big rip at the other), but it could also just fade away in heat death.  That's still an end to time of sorts because the direction is gone, and so is change and regularity.  There would be nothing to define a second anymore.  How is that not the end of time?  So our time seem finite in both directions, or seems to to me.

[Bill S]

Don't know where you got that quote since it doesn't come from anywhere in this topic. It isn't mine.

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=76446.0      #8

[Halc]

Don't know where you got that quote since it doesn't come from anywhere in this topic. It isn't mine.

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=76446.0      #8

OK, It's an Alan quote.  You even said that when you posted it.  I just didn't catch that connection.

[Bill S]

Let’s look at two definitions of eternity.

1. Infinite or unending time.

2. A state to which time has no application; timelessness.

At first glance, these appear contradictory, but, “common usage by educated people” demonstrates that both are useful definitions, in different contexts.  Would you agree with that?

Could it be that differentiating between “eternity” and “eternal structure” conflates the two contexts?

[Halc]

Let’s look at two definitions of eternity.

1. Infinite or unending time.

2. A state to which time has no application; timelessness.

At first glance, these appear contradictory, but, “common usage by educated people” demonstrates that both are useful definitions, in different contexts.  Would you agree with that?

Of course.  Didn't say otherwise.  But those are different meanings, and if ambiguous, it should be made clear which is meant in a statement.

Could it be that differentiating between “eternity” and “eternal structure” conflates the two contexts?

I've used the latter term, by which I mean a structure whose existence is not relative to time.  It does not mean it isn't a temporal structure (one containing time).

So for instance the Mandlebrot set is an eternal structure, but not a temporal one.  It is essentially a 1 dimensional map in the complex plane.
This image depicts a cellular automata that's a nice example of a simple temporal eternal structure:
https://dsweb.siam.org/Portals/DSWeb/EasyDNNnews/1510/1510pi_pa_000001623.jpg

The set of all valid chess states is a wonderful example of a temporal eternal structure with a sort of Hilbert space, much like our own universe.  I've used that example on a number of occasions.

[Bill S]

Platonic realism says that something like the number 13 (not the symbol or an instance, but 13 itself) exists.  A non-realist for number would say that abstract things like that are not real.  Using a relational definition of 'exist', I merely assert that 13 is an integer (more formally: 13 is a member of the set of integers), and asking how 13 comes to be real or not real are both meaningless queries since neither meaningless claim is made.

Good sound philosophical thinking; but as one who tends towards pragmatism, I would say that “13” is a mathematical concept and “exists” as such.  Anyone who needs or wishes to explore to greater depths is welcome to do so. Given more time, I might enjoy joining in.   

[Bill S]

Of course.  Didn't say otherwise.

Just checking.  My memory being what it is, I have to guard against quoting others as saying thing they didn’t say.

  I've used the latter term, by which I mean a structure whose existence is not relative to time.  It does not mean it isn't a temporal structure (one containing time).

I see the distinction, but could you give an example, please.  I appreciate that you have given an example, at

The set of all valid chess states is a wonderful example of a temporal eternal structure

But I’m not clear as to how that is “eternal”.

[Halc]

Good sound philosophical thinking; but as one who tends towards pragmatism, I would say that “13” is a mathematical concept and “exists” as such.  Anyone who needs or wishes to explore to greater depths is welcome to do so. Given more time, I might enjoy joining in.

I don't want to drop this because it's important. I balk at the word 'concept' because that implies that mathematical are products of say human minds and thus we created 13.  But the universe seems to be fundamentally a mathematical structure and thus would not have existed without humans or somebody to create the mathematics upon which it depends.  I'm a relativist, not an idealist, despite some disturbing similarities between the two.

The particle physicists try to figure out what exactly is real: A quark or a photon or something, but quantum mechanics seems not to support the actual existence of something like matter.  All they find is mathematics (wave function in particular).  They find actual mathematics, and not just mathematical concepts.

That said, 13 is an element of the eternal set of integers.  That set isn't a created thing, so it isn't applicable to discuss the time in which it exists.  It is eternal by definition 2 in your post.

Ditto for the other objects I mentioned.

I've used the latter term, by which I mean a structure whose existence is not relative to time.  It does not mean it isn't a temporal structure (one containing time).

I see the distinction, but could you give an example, please.

The Mandlebrot set is not temporal.  It's merely a map of which complex numbers have a certain property and which do not.  There's nothing that evolves over time.
The automata (the linked image) definitely has time in it.  Time is vertical, going downward, and each state (horizontal row of pixels) can be determined from (caused by) the row immediately above it.  That example is 100% deterministic, a really simple structure.

But I’m not clear as to how that is “eternal”.

They're all eternal in that all are abstract mathematical sets which are discovered, not created.  The chess thing is arguably not eternal because it really is a product of a human concept, but the same rules might be chosen by an alien independently, and if they do, they'd define the exact same set.

The set of all valid chess states is temporal and even has entropy.  It has a time zero (the initial state) and a count of half-moves since that point.  The structure has a fixed (finite) number of states since the max game is something like 10000 half-moves.  In that sense it is deterministic, but in other senses it is not.  From the initial state, one cannot ask the fate of the white queen since that cannot be determined from the initial state.  It cannot be determined except from a state where there is no white queen, or from one of the end states.  From any other state, a 'wave function' best describes the potential fates of the queen.  It is a bit like multiworld interpretation in that sense, but MWI's realist stance contains what I feel is its fatal flaw.
There is no current state in the chess structure.  If there was, it wouldn't be eternal because it would represent a game being played, and that is a created structure.  The set of all valid chess states does not involve the game being played.

[cleanair]

Sean Carroll believes the universe is infinite in both directions i.e. it never had a beginning, it was always there and it will never end.

It may be interesting to look at the Horizon Problem.

The Horizon Problem

In our hu-man words, this means 13.8 billion light-years in all directions, the Universe doesn't repeat. Light has been travelling towards us for 13.8 billion years this way, and 13.8 billion years that way, and 13.8 billion years that way; and that's just when the light left those regions. The expansion of the Universe has carried them from 47.5 billion light years away. Based on this, our Universe is 93 billion light-years across and earth is in the exact middle of the Universe.

If we look far out into space, billions of light years away, we see photons with the same temperature -- roughly 2.725 degrees Kelvin. If we look in another direction, we find the same thing. What a coincidence! In fact, when astronomers look in all directions, no matter how distant, they find that all regions have the same temperature. This is incredibly puzzling, Siegel says, "since these regions are separated by distances that are greater than any signal, even light, could have traveled in the time since the Universe was born.

Sources:
https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2016/05/three_problems_with_the_big_bang.html
https://phys.org/news/2015-03-universe-finite-infinite.html

Inflation theory is invented to make the Big Bang theory plausible again, however, some scientists are complaining that it's practically a religion and one of the co-founders recently turned his back on the idea.

1) The Monopole Problem
2) The Flatness Problem
3) The Horizon Problem

You will find the above three problems religiously repeated as a motivation for inflation, in lectures and textbooks and popular science pages all over the place.

Source: Sabine Hossenfelder, theoretical physicist specialized in quantum gravity and high energy physics.

One of inflation’s cofounders has turned his back on the idea. But practically no one else is following him. Is he right?

I was dismayed to see that the criticism by Steinhardt, Ijas, and Loeb that inflation is not a scientific theory, was dismissed so quickly by a community which has become too comfortable with itself.

There’s no warning sign you when you cross the border between science and blabla-land. But inflationary model building left behind reasonable scientific speculation long ago. I, for one, am glad that at least some people are speaking out about it. And that’s why I approve of the Steinhardt et al. criticism.

The Big Bang theory was originally named Cosmic Egg theory.

The following article may be of interest as well:

Einstein’s Lost Theory Describes a Universe Without a Big Bang

Einstein and most scientists held that the universe was “simply there” with no beginning or end. But it’s interesting to note that creation myths across cultures tell the opposite story. Traditions of Chinese, Indian, pre-Colombian, and African cultures, as well as the biblical book of Genesis, all describe (clearly in allegorical terms) a distinct beginning to the universe—whether it’s the “creation in six days” of Genesis or the “Cosmic Egg” of the ancient Indian text the Rig Veda.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2014/03/07/einsteins-lost-theory-describes-a-universe-without-a-big-bang/

[alancalverd]

quantum mechanics seems not to support the actual existence of something like matter.  All they find is mathematics (wave function in particular).  They find actual mathematics, and not just mathematical concepts.

Not happy with that. QM is an attempt to produce a mathematical model of what is observed. It can't "find" anything but might just predict what we do find. It works nicely for molecular structures where it is highly predictive, but seems to be continually catching up with subatomic particles. 

[Halc]

Not happy with that. QM is an attempt to produce a mathematical model of what is observed. It can't "find" anything but might just predict what we do find.

I'm not saying that QM can or cannot find anything.  I'm saying that the closer a scientist looks at matter, the less it looks like matter with properties like volume or coordinates or anything.  It's the empirical tests that cannot find actual matter.

Anyway, I'm not asserting that say an electron isn't real.  I'm interpreting the findings that way.  If you assert that it is real (has an objective state, independent of knowledge or measurement of it), then one has to accept that I can cause an effect in the past, and not just a little.  All interpretations that assert the measurement-independent reality of things need to discard locality which asserts my choices cannot have effects outside my future light cone.
I personally find the latter more offensive, hence I prefer an interpretation that supports locality, and none of them support a measurement-independent state of things.

[Razza]

Theoretical universes come in a menagerie of shapes and clocks.
Our one-verse aka universe could be part of a variety of multi-verses which theoretically result from other independent big bang and quantum events.
These theoretical universes are named parallel, bubble, oscillating, Smolin Fecund, elementary quark, quilted, Brane, cyclic, landscape, quantum, holographic, and ultimate etc. universes. Also, there are amidst the circus, numerical binary universes and some metaphysical antiverses, etc.,  etc.,
The new kid in town is 'Bi-verse the cosmic split'

[Bill S]

That said, 13 is an element of the eternal set of integers………  It is eternal by definition 2 in your post.

2. A state to which time has no application; timelessness.

Just have a few minutes to try to pick up this thread again.

The set of integers might be “eternal” by definition 1, but it has relevance only in terms of a “finite reality”.
By definition 2, there is no concept of change, therefore it is meaningless to talk of a set of anything, as this involves differentiation, which requires change.  Change requires time, and by definition 2, eternity is timeless.