Preconditional Worldview

[Sparhafoc]

Physics, where 'I haz assertion' really, really doesn't cut it.

Anyway, this thread's turning into another one of LEROY's offal dumping grounds. There's plenty of room in the other threads he's started on the subject, why could it be he wants to turn this completely thread into irrelevant topics of his choosing?

I think we all know the answer to that.

 

[leroy]

Complete bullshit. There is precisely zero empirical support for the notion that the universe - as YOU define it - had an absolute beginning. The paper you cite doesn't say what you insist it says, and I've explained why.

You're such a liar. Honestly, every single thing that's wrong with the human race is manifest in your tawdry presence on this forum.

Back to ignoring you completely.

Edited to add, for those who missed earlier discussions, what BGV theorem actually says is that, if eternal inflation is a correct model, that new physics is required to circumvent a beginning, because that new physics would be required to explain the low entropy state of the early universe. It doesn't say that there was a beginning, or even probably. We already know that new physics is required, because we don't have a quantum theory of gravity. This is especially relevant because gravity is an ordering force that increases entropy, and until we know its role in the early universe, we can say precisely fuck all with rigour about whether or not the universe had an absolute beginning.

Moreover, BGV theorem is rooted in treating the instantiation of the cosmos in terms of thermodynamics, and this is hugely problematic, because we can't even say with any confidence what type of thermodynamic system the universe is. Since the evolution of any thermodynamic system depends on the type of system, we can say nothing with confidence. It's an open question.

Finally, because the one thing that defines a thermodynamic system is its boundary, and since we have at least one model on the table in which the boundary condition of the universe is that it has no boundary, that means that the universe is an
open system. Lowering entropy locally in an open system is trivial, and we all do it every day.

Seriously, Leroy. You haven't the faintest idea of what you're talking about, and it would take 20 years of education to get you anywhere near the understanding you'd require to make any sort of interesting or useful contribution to this discussion. Kindly shut the fuck up and let the adults talk.

1 The article that I quoted is not the article that presents the BGV theorem. The paper that I quoted says

We discuss three candidate scenarios which seem to allow the possibility that the universe could have existed forever with no initial singularity: eternal infation, cyclic evolution, and the emergent universe. The first two of these scenarios are geodesically incomplete to the past, and thus cannot describe a universe without a beginning. The third, although it is stable with respect to classical perturbations, can collapse quantum mechanically, and therefore cannot have an eternal past.

Did the universe have a beginning? At this point, it seems that the answer to this question is probably yes
https://arxiv.org/abs/1204.4658

2 Yes the BGV theorem does conclude that the universe had a geginning.

Many inflating spacetimes are likely to violate the weak energy condition, a key assumption of singularity theorems. Here we offer a simple kinematical argument, requiring no energy condition, that a cosmological model which is inflating -- or just expanding sufficiently fast -- must be incomplete in null and timelike past directions. Specifically, we obtain a bound on the integral of the Hubble parameter over a past-directed timelike or null geodesic. Thus inflationary models require physics other than inflation to describe the past boundary of the inflating region of spacetime
https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0110012
.

You are ether a charlatan or a lier,
1 ether you are a charlatan and you have no formal education in physics and cosmology and you have no idea on what “past incomplete” means

2 You are a liar, you understand what “past incomplete” means but you know that your atheist friends don´t so can simply lie to them, knowing that they will grant everything you say no matter what.

The article that you have in your blog is also pathetic and as wrong as something can be, your whole discourse on the “new physics” is a complete misinterpretation from your part.

 

[Sparhafoc]

The obvious thing which LEROY is missing* is that while the paper says...

We discuss three candidate scenarios which seem to allow the possibility that the universe could have existed forever with no initial singularity: eternal infation, cyclic evolution, and the emergent universe. The first two of these scenarios are geodesically incomplete to the past, and thus cannot describe a universe without a beginning. The third, although it is stable with respect to classical perturbations, can collapse quantum mechanically, and therefore cannot have an eternal past.

It does not suggest that these three candidate scenarios are exhaustive, which puts paid to LEROY's claims regardless.


And as for the asterisk, by 'missing' I mean 'lying through his teeth as he always does'.

 

[Sparhafoc]

You are ether a charlatan or a lier,
1 ether you are a charlatan and you have no formal education in physics and cosmology and you have no idea on what “past incomplete” means

2 You are a liar, you understand what “past incomplete” means but you know that your atheist friends don´t so can simply lie to them, knowing that they will grant everything you say no matter what.

The article that you have in your blog is also pathetic and as wrong as something can be, your whole discourse on the “new physics” is a complete misinterpretation from your part.

You have no legitimacy here with anyone, and you so routinely fail to grasp extremely simple concepts that it is hilarious that you think you can decide what is or isn't correct. You are known by all here as a liar, a recidivist self-pleasuring fool who knows shit, talks shit, and is basically just shit.

So LEROY, do as you were told and fuck off.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Fuck off, leroy.
He has repeatedly shown you the difference between the two. You are seemingly just too dense to grasp the difference, despite it repeatedly being made abundantly clear.

Just.....fuck....off.

+1

 

[leroy]

You are ether a charlatan or a lier,
1 ether you are a charlatan and you have no formal education in physics and cosmology and you have no idea on what “past incomplete” means

2 You are a liar, you understand what “past incomplete” means but you know that your atheist friends don´t so can simply lie to them, knowing that they will grant everything you say no matter what.

The article that you have in your blog is also pathetic and as wrong as something can be, your whole discourse on the “new physics” is a complete misinterpretation from your part.

You have no legitimacy here with anyone, and you so routinely fail to grasp extremely simple concepts that it is hilarious that you think you can decide what is or isn't correct. You are known by all here as a liar, a recidivist self-pleasuring fool who knows shit, talks shit, and is basically just shit.

So LEROY, do as you were told and fuck off.

However every time I challenge you to quote any lie that I have made, you always fail in meating the challenge.

 

[leroy]

The obvious thing which LEROY is missing* is that while the paper says...

We discuss three candidate scenarios which seem to allow the possibility that the universe could have existed forever with no initial singularity: eternal infation, cyclic evolution, and the emergent universe. The first two of these scenarios are geodesically incomplete to the past, and thus cannot describe a universe without a beginning. The third, although it is stable with respect to classical perturbations, can collapse quantum mechanically, and therefore cannot have an eternal past.

It does not suggest that these three candidate scenarios are exhaustive, which puts paid to LEROY's claims regardless.


And as for the asterisk, by 'missing' I mean 'lying through his teeth as he always does'.

However it includes inflationary models, which is the model that Aronra seems to be promoting.

So:

Vilenkin claims that inflation can not be eternal in to the past, and he provides evidence in his paper

Aronra claims that inflations and new “bubbles” could have popped an infinite amount of time ago. A he has not justified his assertion.

Honestly why would anyone what to side with Aronra?

note
Vilenkin is simply showing that even these 3 models that are suppose to be the “chief models” in support of an infinite past fail. Is there any model that you think he should have included?

 

[Sparhafoc]

However every time I challenge you to quote any lie that I have made, you always fail in meating the challenge.

That has never happened. Each and every time you've pretended that you weren't caught lying, but that doesn't mean I didn't show you.

An example is right here in this thread where you selectively cited a source which contradicts your claim.

You will lie again right now rather than acknowledge that.

Lying is all you really do, aside from bluster, brag, bleat and shit on the table of honest discourse.

 

[Sparhafoc]

However it includes inflationary models, which is the model that Aronra seems to be promoting.

Unlike other people, I don't give a fuck what you're yammering about because a) you have plenty of open threads where you wibble through your half-baked, ideologically driven rendition of an expert field of science in which you lack even a passing competence and b) you don't engage honestly here and never have.

So:

Vilenkin claims that inflation can not be eternal in to the past, and he provides evidence in his paper

Liar.

There are 3 models cited, but nowhere does it suggest that those 3 models are exhaustive, stop fucking lying you lying cretin.

Aronra claims that inflations and new “bubbles” could have popped an infinite amount of time ago. A he has not justified his assertion.

According to you, but given how you are permanently unable to justify any of your assertions and how you selectively cite sources that intrinsically contradict the argument you are making when you cite them, I would say that quite literally everything you say is bullshit. You're not interested in honest discourse; you're here to practice your hatred of the heathen.

Honestly why would anyone what to side with Aronra?

Well, for a start, he doesn't talk out of his arse and lie to strangers on the internet?

note
Vilenkin is simply showing that even these 3 models that are suppose to be the “chief models” in support of an infinite past fail. Is there any model that you think he should have included?

And tacit admission that you either a) were mistaken in your assertion or b) you know and were lying.

My point is quite clear for those people who are here to engage in honest discourse.

 

[AronRa]

The inflation of "a" universe could have happened an infinite amount of time ago, or it could have happened last Thursday, but the inflation of THIS universe evidently occurred roughly 14 billion years ago.

Again, the paper that I quoted explains why that can’t be true, inflation could have not happen an infinite amount of time ago.

Notice how you started you comment with "again"? So must I. Once again, I repeat, the article you cited made no reference whatever to any other universe than this one. This one evidently began its inflation roughly 14 billion years ago.

 

[leroy]

[Notice how you started you comment with "again"? So must I. Once again, I repeat, the article you cited made no reference whatever to any other universe than this one. This one evidently began its inflation roughly 14 billion years ago.

You can repeat your lies as many times as you what, this is a written forum and anyone can read the article (https://arxiv.org/abs/1204.4658) and note that the article is explicitly talking about “inflationary multiverses”(+ other 2 models) , the conclusion of the article is that even if there were “many inflations” and many “bubble universes” the multiverse would still require a beginning.

But don’t worry most members form this forum would kiss your ass no matter how many times you lie.

hackenslash wrote:
Rumraket wrote:
Some atheistic arguments, or responses, are in fact stupid and silly. I have no compunction agreeing to that. I'm an atheist yet it is entirely obvious to me that some atheists are atheists for bad reasons, or have no, or bad answers to some theistic arguments. In becoming an atheist, one does not magically transform into some sort of flawless logic-computer that only make correct arguments.


This.

In fact, these days, I spend far more effort in correcting these bad arguments than I do arguing with theists.

That quote is old, but I am wondering, is hackenslash still in the business of correcting atheist? Is so I would appreciate if he corrects Aronra, and explains to him that the paper is not talking about “our universe” but the whole “inflationary multiverse”

AronRa wrote:
The inflation of "a" universe could have happened an infinite amount of time ago, or it could have happened last Thursday, but the inflation of THIS universe evidently occurred roughly 14 billion years ago.

Apart from what the paper says, you still have to show that your assertion is true, you still have to show that “a” universe could have happen an infinite amount of time ago.

If you can make assertions without showing them to be true, why can’t YEC do the same?

Again don’t do it for me, do it for your atheist audience that might what to know how is that assertion justified.

 

[leroy]

Liar.

There are 3 models cited, but nowhere does it suggest that those 3 models are exhaustive, stop fucking lying you lying cretin.

Why are you calling me a lier? Did I ever say that those models are exhaustive?

Yes the paper only deals with tree types of models, inflationary models, cyclic models, and emergent models, the only thing that I don’t understand is why are you making such a big deal with this. I agree that the paper does not show that the universe definitely had a beginning, but it provides evidence for it, that sums with all the previous evidence that has been provided in previous works.

Not to mention that the paper explicitly says that in inflationary models “a” universe could have not happen an infinite amount of time ago, which contradicts what Aronra is asserting, I simply what to know under what basis should we believe in Aronras word, and reject what Audrey Mithani, and Alexander Vilenkin are saying in their paper.

 

[Deleted member 619]

What I will note, for the benefit of those who are interested in what that paper is actually talking about, is that what it's really doing is assessing candidate models that appeared to circumvent the requirements of BGV Theorem, and pointing out that they don't. This still brings us back to what BGV Theorem actually says, which is that new physics is required to circumvent a beginning because of entropy.

In the case of eternal inflation, that new physics would be in the form of something that slows expansion in pockets of the bulk, allowing for an infusion of radiation into such a pocket.

No intention of engaging with Leroy on this, because he has nothing remotely of value to contribute to any discussion.

The best bit is that no atheist I'm aware of is wedded to any particular model. The simple fact is that we have several models on the table, both with and without a beginning. Neither scenario leaves the door open for a magical entity. In that light, the entire entry of cosmology into this discussion is nothing more than a sidebar and a distraction from the elephant that's completely failed to be in the room for several thousand years.

Leroy could make his entire case if he could cite on unequivocal piece of evidence for his cosmic curtain-twitcher. Instead, all we have is semantic diversions, cretinous citations of science he has no grasp of, and accusing others of dishonesty in the most ludicrous case of projection this commentator has ever seen, in an extremely strong field spanning many fuckwits over several decades.

Seriously, I have no further interest in watching Leroy wanking all over the forum.

 

[Sparhafoc]

You can repeat your lies as many times as you what,...

Yes, you can and you do, LEROY.

But what it means is that everyone knows you are a liar, and consequently knows very well what you're doing having seen it every other conversation you've been in here.

But don’t worry most members form this forum would kiss your ass no matter how many times you lie.

LEROY pretending its not he who's the liar, and that liars are very much not appreciated by anyone motivated by reason.

The reason why you are disdained here, LEROY, is not because of your beliefs, but because of your recidivist intellectual dishonesty, blagging, and outright lying.

You've been told what to do, so go fucking do it.

That quote is old, but I am wondering, is hackenslash still in the business of correcting atheist? Is so I would appreciate if he corrects Aronra, and explains to him that the paper is not talking about “our universe” but the whole “inflationary multiverse”

I've seen you play this card (read: chainyank) several dozen times already on this forum, and in each instance that Hack happens to notice, he explains why you are talking out of your rectum, and immediately you start squealing foul, calling him a liar, and pretending you know more than him... so fuck off LEROY.

Apart from what the paper says, you still have to show that your assertion is true, you still have to show that “a” universe could have happen an infinite amount of time ago.

If you can make assertions without showing them to be true, why can’t YEC do the same?

Because regardless of whether Aron Ra cited the paper or not - and why would he perform tricks for a lying asshat who quotemines all the time? - his position is based off of known evidence, whereas the YEC's position is in direct contradiction to reams of evidence.

So pop the vapid Whataboutism back whence it came.

Again don’t do it for me, do it for your atheist audience that might what to know how is that assertion justified.

You've been told what to do, now get about doing it.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Liar.

There are 3 models cited, but nowhere does it suggest that those 3 models are exhaustive, stop fucking lying you lying cretin.

Why are you calling me a lier? Did I ever say that those models are exhaustive?

No, you just pretended that because 3 models don't mean X, then X is wrong.

Your contention is false, your notions misguided, your bullshit exposed.

Yes the paper only deals with tree types of models, inflationary models, cyclic models, and emergent models, the only thing that I don’t understand is why are you making such a big deal with this.

Says the guy calling other people charlatans for educating you about your errors.

I agree that the paper does not show that the universe definitely had a beginning, but it provides evidence for it, that sums with all the previous evidence that has been provided in previous works.

I don't give a fuck what you agree with. Your agreement is about as valuable to me as fetid horse crap.

Not to mention that the paper explicitly says that in inflationary models “a” universe could have not happen an infinite amount of time ago, which contradicts what Aronra is asserting, I simply what to know under what basis should we believe in Aronras word, and reject what Audrey Mithani, and Alexander Vilenkin are saying in their paper.

Because, as was just explained to you, just because 3 models don't show X, that doesn't mean that X cannot be shown in other models. Similarly, if you weren't motivated by vacuous agenda, you'd have found the numerous instances in modern physics contradicting your stated position. But again, honesty and integrity are alien concepts for you. That's your entire career here summed in a single sentence.

 

[Steelmage99]

 

[Deleted member 619]

It's a quality bit of smashing, that.

 

[leroy]

Anyway, this thread's turning into another one of LEROY's offal dumping grounds. There's plenty of room in the other threads he's started on the subject, why could it be he wants to turn this completely thread into irrelevant topics of his choosing?

I think we all know the answer to that.

ok granted, we moved from the original topic in the thread because of me....

the thread was originally about how theists (particularly joshua040103) are dishonest because assertions are made without showing them to be true.

AronRa wrote:
The inflation of "a" universe could have happened an infinite amount of time ago, or it could have happened last Thursday, but the inflation of THIS universe evidently occurred roughly 14 billion years ago.

So an open question for all the members of this forum would be>

Shouldn't AronRa show that his assertion is true?

 

[leroy]

But what it means is that everyone knows you are a liar,.

well, ether stop calling me a liar, or quote any lie that I have made. quote an actual lie, and then explain why is that a lie

 

[Sparhafoc]

ok granted, we moved from the original topic in the thread because of me....

the thread was originally about how theists (particularly joshua040103) are dishonest because assertions are made without showing them to be true.

I'd say the thread is pretty clearly about preconditional worldviews, it being the title and the content of the OP.

So an open question for all the members of this forum would be>

Shouldn't AronRa show that his assertion is true?

Well, it's not an assumption you need to make on other peoples' behalf.

There are a number of reasons why people might not need Aron Ra, or anyone to support a claim.

The first and most obvious would be that the person is already in possession of sufficient evidence to lend the assertion credence.

The second is that a person might see it as sufficiently reasonable, based on what they know, to lend it credence.

The third, as a consequence of the two above, would be a person that agrees with Aron Ra.

Ergo, the only time you actually need to cite sources is when someone requests it - not as a default because that would make dialogue laborious. Not even the most extreme scientific papers cite a source for every single sentence because most scientists would assume prior knowledge in their specialist audience.

So, whether others might also want to see evidence for that claim, they're not asking for it, leaving only you.

Therefore, the simplest progression would be for you to elucidate what part of the sentence you have problems with and why you have problems with it.