What does it mean for something to be "logically possible"?

[untermensche]

It's a theory that does change our current understanding about what's possible in the universe and its past.

If it is some obscure meaningless hypothesis nobody gives a damn about it.

It is never really reviewed.

Well, if this is what your argument has come to, then you should think hard about why you still hold your position.

Bottom line, if you can't put this "theory" into clear and concise language nothing can be done with it.

So either explain it or drop it.

You have not explained it.

A link is not an explanation.

Contradicting a simplified explanation is not going to convince me or anyone that you have falsified their claim. The jump is too big for you to fully understand and appreciate the claim from just a summary, and it's too big for me to give it a proper summary.

My issue is that you do not understand the article, yet you think their claim is foolish and impossible.

You have made no claim to falsify.

You have asked me to try to understand something you clearly don't understand yourself.

I'm not going to do research projects for you.

I will address your arguments, not your empty claims.

 

[ryan]

It's a theory that does change our current understanding about what's possible in the universe and its past.

If it is some obscure meaningless hypothesis nobody gives a damn about it.

It is never really reviewed.

Well, if this is what your argument has come to, then you should think hard about why you still hold your position.

Bottom line, if you can't put this "theory" into clear and concise language nothing can be done with it.

So either explain it or drop it.

You have not explained it.

A link is not an explanation.

Contradicting a simplified explanation is not going to convince me or anyone that you have falsified their claim. The jump is too big for you to fully understand and appreciate the claim from just a summary, and it's too big for me to give it a proper summary.

My issue is that you do not understand the article, yet you think their claim is foolish and impossible.

You have made no claim to falsify.

That's right; I make no claim about infinity. I am a bystander.

I observe one side using practically all the physical science we have to explain in an incredibly thorough way that infinity is possible, but you refute this claim without understanding it. How on Earth do you expect me to take your side?

 

[beero1000]

I was curious so I actually read the paper (am I the only one?). It was published in a pretty solid journal and has racked up a bunch of citations since it was published in 2015 (so it has been through both 'publication review' and peer review, but whatever).

Anyway, if anyone is interested, the idea of the paper takes the  Raychaudhuri equation (a fundamental result in general relativity that describes the motion of objects in spacetime). They then apply a quantum correction (replacing GR's geodesic motion with QMs particle trajectories) to the equation in an attempt to reconcile the issues between quantum mechanics and relativity. They show that the resulting quantum corrected Raychaudhuri equation yields quantum corrected  Friedmann equations and still allows the recovery of the classical Raychaudhuri and Friedmann equations in the limit, and emphasize that the corrected equations have strong justifications and fix several issues between GR and QM.

They then consider the correction terms - the relevant of which here is the second term. They take that correction term, which can be rewritten in terms of the  Hubble parameter H from the Friedmann equations. The age of the universe is then given by an integral of a function of H given by that correction term. The uncorrected equations give singularities in the Hubble parameter but yield a finite age for the universe, but the corrected version keeps the Hubble parameters finite and yields an infinite age to the universe.

They conclude with

In summary, we have shown here that as for the QRE, the second order Friedmann equation derived from the QRE also contains two quantum correction terms. These terms are generic and unavoidable and follow naturally in a quantum mechanical description of our universe. Of these, the first can be interpreted as cosmological constant or dark energy of the correct (observed) magnitude and a small mass of the graviton (or axion). The second quantum correction term pushes back the time singularity indefinitely and predicts an everlasting universe.

 

[untermensche]

Yes some equations yielding predictions where one variable flies off to infinity. Predictions which may be true or not.

Not evidence of anything.

 

[ryan]

Yes some equations yielding predictions where one variable flies off to infinity. Predictions which may be true or not.

Not evidence of anything.

You say "may be true"; have you finally given up on the impossibility position?

 

[untermensche]

Yes some equations yielding predictions where one variable flies off to infinity. Predictions which may be true or not.

Not evidence of anything.

You say "may be true"; have you finally given up on the impossibility position?

This is not an observation of a real infinity.

It is not an observation of anything.

It is manipulating equations.

It is not a refutation of my position that no real infinity can be observed.

 

[ryan]

You say "may be true"; have you finally given up on the impossibility position?

This is not an observation of a real infinity.

It is not an observation of anything.

It is manipulating equations.

It is not a refutation of my position that no real infinity can be observed.

I never said anything about observing infinity. I am only against your claim that infinity is impossible. Are you sticking with that claim?

 

[untermensche]

This is not an observation of a real infinity.

It is not an observation of anything.

It is manipulating equations.

It is not a refutation of my position that no real infinity can be observed.

I never said anything about observing infinity. I am only against your claim that infinity is impossible. Are you sticking with that claim?

This doesn't make infinity possible.

Fiddling with equations doesn't create real world possibilities.

In 50 years somebody will come along and say they got some obscure part of the math wrong.

This isn't something to take very seriously. It isn't evidence. It is mere speculation with math as opposed with words.

But for people that don't understand that the models are merely abstractions of reality and are not real themselves it may have some meaning.

 

[beero1000]

I never said anything about observing infinity. I am only against your claim that infinity is impossible. Are you sticking with that claim?

This doesn't make infinity possible.

Fiddling with equations doesn't create real world possibilities.

In 50 years somebody will come along and say they got some obscure part of the math wrong.

This isn't something to take very seriously. It isn't evidence. It is mere speculation with math as opposed with words.

But for people that don't understand that the models are merely abstractions of reality and are not real themselves it may have some meaning.

and... whoooosh goes the point. I like that you're so in denial that you conclude that their logic will be shown wrong in 50 years but yours is unassailable and that their conclusions are speculation but yours are truth. They're actual physicists and their paper has passed peer review, garnering a bunch of citations, and you are some guy on the internet who can't even convince anyone on a discussion board that you aren't some Dunning-Kruger chatbot.

If ryan continues to have the patience of a saint in trying to get you to see reason, you could at least make the effort to understand what he's saying. It's quite simple.

 

[fromderinside]

...or so you claim ....

What am I claiming? I am not making a definite claim that an infinite past does or doesn't exist. My only claim is that UM's definite claim is not justified.

Sure, fine, OK. Yours is a counter claim. Satisfied?

 

[ryan]

I never said anything about observing infinity. I am only against your claim that infinity is impossible. Are you sticking with that claim?

This doesn't make infinity possible.

Fiddling with equations doesn't create real world possibilities.

In 50 years somebody will come along and say they got some obscure part of the math wrong.

This isn't something to take very seriously. It isn't evidence. It is mere speculation with math as opposed with words.

But for people that don't understand that the models are merely abstractions of reality and are not real themselves it may have some meaning.

But since all we have to go on is a theory that requires an infinitely old universe, what other choice do we have?

And even if this theory did not exist, I would still be arguing against your position of infinity being imopossible. You cannot be sure of all that exists no matter how much you observe.

 

[ryan]

This doesn't make infinity possible.

Fiddling with equations doesn't create real world possibilities.

In 50 years somebody will come along and say they got some obscure part of the math wrong.

This isn't something to take very seriously. It isn't evidence. It is mere speculation with math as opposed with words.

But for people that don't understand that the models are merely abstractions of reality and are not real themselves it may have some meaning.

If ryan continues to have the patience of a saint in trying to get you to see reason, you could at least make the effort to understand what he's saying. It's quite simple.

For me this discussion is really about the "not even wrong" argument. I think UM is going for this.

I think it's string theory that inspired this phrase, and it has had its supporters ever since.

But this new theory seems to require infinity which would make the model an integral part of the theory, so this isn't the same thing as a pure math model like string theory. And even if it were, UM would be taking it too far by describing these models as impossible. The not-even-wrong stance is just to kick it out of science.

There is serious debate on either integrating pure models into science somehow or adding a new kind of method for understanding the universe.

 

[untermensche]

This doesn't make infinity possible.

Fiddling with equations doesn't create real world possibilities.

In 50 years somebody will come along and say they got some obscure part of the math wrong.

This isn't something to take very seriously. It isn't evidence. It is mere speculation with math as opposed with words.

But for people that don't understand that the models are merely abstractions of reality and are not real themselves it may have some meaning.

and... whoooosh goes the point. I like that you're so in denial that you conclude that their logic will be shown wrong in 50 years but yours is unassailable and that their conclusions are speculation but yours are truth. They're actual physicists and their paper has passed peer review, garnering a bunch of citations, and you are some guy on the internet who can't even convince anyone on a discussion board that you aren't some Dunning-Kruger chatbot.

If ryan continues to have the patience of a saint in trying to get you to see reason, you could at least make the effort to understand what he's saying. It's quite simple.

You worthless unsupported irrational claims are noted.

You have nothing to offer here except a deep ignorance.

You don't know the difference between scientific models and the real thing. One can have infinity and one cannot.

 

[untermensche]

This doesn't make infinity possible.

Fiddling with equations doesn't create real world possibilities.

In 50 years somebody will come along and say they got some obscure part of the math wrong.

This isn't something to take very seriously. It isn't evidence. It is mere speculation with math as opposed with words.

But for people that don't understand that the models are merely abstractions of reality and are not real themselves it may have some meaning.

But since all we have to go on is a theory that requires an infinitely old universe, what other choice do we have?

And even if this theory did not exist, I would still be arguing against your position of infinity being imopossible. You cannot be sure of all that exists no matter how much you observe.

All it does is open a huge can of worms. It doesn't answer anything. And it is not supported by any evidence.

It is nothing but equations on paper.

No observation. No experimental evidence.

You have all kinds of faith in nothing but the assurances of those with nothing but equations.

I do not share this absurd faith. Although it does seem to represent a kind of modern religion.

The religion that mere equations without any evidence to back them up equate to understanding.

 

[ryan]

But since all we have to go on is a theory that requires an infinitely old universe, what other choice do we have?

And even if this theory did not exist, I would still be arguing against your position of infinity being imopossible. You cannot be sure of all that exists no matter how much you observe.

All it does is open a huge can of worms. It doesn't answer anything. And it is not supported by any evidence.

It is nothing but equations on paper.

No observation. No experimental evidence.

That's not true; we already went over this.

You have all kinds of faith in nothing but the assurances of those with nothing but equations.

They at least have that (even though they have more). But you bring nothing, yet you make an absolute claim, something they are not even doing with their method of reasoning.

And you still haven't explained how you get to impossible.

I do not share this absurd faith. Although it does seem to represent a kind of modern religion.

The religion that mere equations without any evidence to back them up equate to understanding.

The math models model the observations and they model a better explanation for the time around the Big Bang. They work for much of the universe present and past.

 

[untermensche]

The math models model the observations and they model a better explanation for the time around the Big Bang.

They do not observe any kind of infinity. They are not based on any observation of infinity.

It is possible for the answer of some equation to be infinity, yes.

That is all you are claiming here.

 

[Kharakov]

C'mon unter, it isn't possible for an AI built following discrete rules to perceive the existence of infinity, except through revelation. Will you accept me as your lord and savior?

 

[untermensche]

C'mon unter, it isn't possible for an AI built following discrete rules to perceive the existence of infinity, except through revelation. Will you accept me as your lord and savior?

How is that my problem?

 

[ryan]

The math models model the observations and they model a better explanation for the time around the Big Bang.

They do not observe any kind of infinity. They are not based on any observation of infinity.

It is possible for the answer of some equation to be infinity, yes.

That is all you are claiming here.

An observation of exactly X is not necessary for a model to make a correct prediction for X. There are countless examples of this.

Similar logic to how long the universe has been expanding, we could know how long an object has been falling by measuring its velocity here on Earth (as long as it hasn't reached terminal velocity). We wouldn't have to observe its history to be correct about how long it had been falling. We may be wrong because of other unknowns that we missed, but we maybe right as far as we can tell.

This new model might be correct, and it at least allows infinity to be possible as far as present day cosmology is concerned.

 

[ryan]

C'mon unter, it isn't possible for an AI built following discrete rules to perceive the existence of infinity, except through revelation. Will you accept me as your lord and savior?

This is a neat idea. I never thought of it this way before.

I accept!