Summations Only

Hi Panda, Why would existence need a mechanism to exist eternally?The universe exists and we exist.Existence can not begin to exist in or out of non-existence.Yet we exist.I am sorry for you that your education has blinded your eyes and your thinking to the point you can not understand nor fathom non-existence.The free dictionary defines non-existence as:
1. The condition of not existing.
2. Something that does not exist.Merriam Webster defines non-existence:
: absence of existence : the negation of beingThesaurus defines non-existence:
Noun 1. nonexistence - the state of not existingThe free dictionary defines existence:
1. The fact or state of existing; being.
2. The fact or state of continued being; life:Merriam Webster defines existence:
1 a. obsolete: reality as opposed to appearanceb: reality as presented in experiencec (1): the totality of existent things (2): a particular beingNon-existence is the opposite of existence.The universe exists, we exist in the universe, that is reality.In non-existence there would be no universe or us, or anything, that is reality.God Bless,

What average kinetic energy particles moving inside Planck length may possibly have? The length is indivisible by conception so may not allow any motion. What is the size of a single moving particle? How many particles are there for you to calculate the statistical averages of their motions? There is no space nor time for any particles to move. Therefore Planck epoch may have no temperature. If you claim there is any temperature immediately after that claim has got no physical justification. You get all the heat out of nothing.
You make a mockery out of the very foundations of quantum physics. Quantum means discrete, indivisible base unit.

Hi ringo, The universe exists. It has either existed eternally in some form or it began to exist instantaneously in and out of non-existence.Take your choice. Existence is a state of being. Yet the universe exists so one must be true. So is time.Which man has devised to measure duration.God Bless,

Yes, it's a state of being, not a being. A state of being doesn't exist, per se; it pertains or applies to the thing possessing that state. But which one is not known. You can arbitrarily pick one or the other but neither is supported by fact. Both are equally imaginary. You can not claim that one is impossible so the other must be true. Time is a component of space-time. It's as real as space (and space is not "nothing"). Time and space are the fabrc that the universe is made of. We have no way of seeing "before" the Big Bang because there was no universe before the Big Bang. There was no fabric, no space, no time.But that doesn't mean there was "nothing". We just don't have any way of knowing.

There is no mechanism by which existence could have existed eternally.
If there was, then I am sure that you would have put it in your reply.
Or are you being coy?Is there a mechanism where the universe could exist eternally?Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

But it is divisible by numbers.Also Pi is not divisible by happiness and Avogadro's number is not divisible by lawn-mowers.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

- Oni

How can a lack of reality be reality?

Out of boredom and curiosity, I removed all the words with contain 'exist' and also any similes.
And since ICANT claims that existence = universe and universe = reality, I removed all the occurrences of 'universe' and 'reality'. I think that shows that ICANT is simply using the same word, time and time again.
The only sentence that contains any information is his insult.I do not know how he could not know both meanings of the word 'tautology', since he uses it so much.
Maybe he thinks 'tautology' means the "tautological tautology of tautolistic tautologists".
Tautally, dude!Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

They claim that particles existed in the time scale that I was talking about. So your objection is still countered.

Did you read Message 206? Because I'm pretty sure I talked about a time period greater than 1 Planck time 'instant'. Yeah, here it is:

quote:

---

But if we take the universe from Planck Time to say t=10^-25 seconds we'd have motion and thus temperature. I haven't done the maths but I've read that if we did this we'd get a temperature between 10³²K and 10¹³ K (erring vastly towards the hotter end of that range). I think that qualifies as 'hot', right?

---

The maths of General Relativity doesn't work, that's for sure. I believe some other maths works fine, but they have yet to be experimentally verified. Think thermodynamics.The universe has x disorder now and a complementary y amount of order.Tomorrow it will have x+1 disorder and y-1 order.Disorder increases as you go forward in time.Therefore, the universe was more ordered (had less entropy) yesterday than it does today.Therefore, the universe was maximally ordered in its earliest stages (and thus more disordered in its latest stages).Order can be thought of as a concentration of workable energy. The sun is highly ordered. But it's processes do increase entropy. In 10 trillion years the sun will be more diffuse than it is now (more disordered). So conceptually, the universe is much more diffuse than it was before. Thus it was more ordered in the past and will be less ordered in the future.I'm speaking imprecisely about mathematical ideas. To back me up, here is Sean Carroll's take on it

quote:

---

The observed macroscopic irreversibility is not a consequence of the fundamental laws of physics, it's a consequence of the particular configuration in which the universe finds itself. In particular, the unusual low-entropy conditions in the very early universe, near the Big Bang. Understanding the arrow of time is a matter of understanding the origin of the universe.

---

Low entropy conditions in very early universe. Low entropy = high order.Think of the universe being represented by a deck of cards. It starts off very ordered (by suit and in value order). Then you begin the slowest shuffle imaginable. Moving one card at a time. It gradually loses its 'order'. Again, imprecise words to give you a sense of what I'm saying. When all the energy of all the stars and planets and so on are in one place - its going to be a bit warm. I believe it is to do with negative-pressure vacuum energy. But I'll not even attempt to explain in as it will undoubtedly come out garbled due to my layman's grasp and memory faults, and I would not want to do you a disservice of giving you misconceptions. That's what we see when we examine the evidence left behind by these events. You can go look at the evidence for yourself, I suppose. Though I don't think I understand half of it, so I'm not sure you'd benefit from that. You must at least accept that the evidence strongly suggests it, because those that have spent their lives studying the universe formally all seem to agree on these things. They might all be mistaken, but I think it more likely that anyone who thinks otherwise is going to be the mistaken one. What I have no idea on, is which one, if any, is true. Actually, that's not far off Sean Carroll's 'pet' speculation (I recommend watching it, it's 9 minutes long)If you don't want to, or can't. Here is my brief summary.A universe of just space with random fluctuations. Could those fluctuations result in the formation of a 'baby universe'? If so, this configuration (the new baby universe) will start in a low entropy state.
The entropy of reality (or the multiverse or whatever we want to call that includes the original and the baby universe) has gone up.
The baby universe can expand and cool etc., much like what we see with the big bang.
This can happen both directions in time.

------------------original universe---------------------------------
|                                                     |
O <-                                                   o ->    --baby universes
​

The arrows represent the arrow of time, going backwards and forwards from the original condition.This baby universe production is a process by which the 'original universe' increases its entropy.Is it true? Carroll doesn't know. The reason he likes it is there is no 'cheating' by which he means there is no fine tuned addition of low entropy states. You start with a high entropy state, and it just gets higher and higher in both directions of time. He does concede however, that it is speculative.

quote:

---

We know that we don't know why. We know that we don't have, currently, any theory of what happened at the big bang that's absolutely reliable - that you'd ever place a fair bet saying its probably true...We're working to understand that.

​

So it could be, initial conditions, put in by hand. It could be something before the big bang, it could be that we're part of a bigger multiverse. This is the excitement of doing science: We're not sure yet. Stay tuned and probably in a year or two we'll have it all figured out Thank you.

---

Look, once again:The Big Bang does not mention a Planck volume. At the earliest point in the Big Bang model the universe has a finite not size. It is not Planck sized.Why do you (and ICANT) keep asking questions or making points based around something that is not mentioned in the model at all? Quantum Theories are theories where the physics is described by probability waves, probabilities for a given outcome to occur.In some circumstances, these theories imply that energy comes in discrete amounts, for example the energy of electrons in an atom. Since these scenarios were the ones originally looked at when Quantum Mechanics was being developed it got its name from this discrete/quantum behaviour of the energy levels.However this notion of discreteness is not the foundation of the theory, just a consequence in some situations.

Tacky, playing dumb is not helping you. I said the expansion of space is no explanation of redshift, remember? That is an impossible extension of extension. There are plausible explanations of the phenomenon galore. The bigbangism is consistently preferred to them all and is defended with such a religious zeal demonstrating that the big bunk is a purely cultural phenomenon bearing but a tenuous relation to science.

Sean Carroll is a serious quack. He looks like an able-bodied robust fellow who might be useful doing some simple construction work instead of mentally farting in public in this manner.
The whole projection of the psychological linear time on the whole of existence is hilarious. Time is an alternative relative measure of distance. That can be mapped in any direction or no direction at all depending on the model. Attributing direction to a sequence is a fallacy otherwise.
You claim that the putative primordial quark-gluon soup is the state of highest possible order. Pray, explain to yourself in what way or respect the soup is more ordered than you or yours truly? Or anything else for that matter?