RE: Is there really any problem with an infinate regresion of universes?
April 2, 2015 at 11:26 am
(This post was last modified: April 2, 2015 at 11:28 am by Brian37.)
Um yes, if you are going to claim complexity to explain complexity that is infinite regress.
However infinity does not need to result in using more complex to explain the complex.
It is no different than drawing a finite line on paper knowing mathematically it can have in infinite number of points between it the two ends.
It certainly can be an ongoing cycle like seasons changing, but that would not need something more complex to explain the complexity anymore winter is more complex to spring. It would simply be an eb and flow.
Laurence Krauss clearly states what nature is telling us, complexity is an outcome, not a starting point.
Even with the freaky things QM and string theory suggest, "all this" will still collapse to nothing, at that point it could be another QM twitch would lead to another big bang. But that would again, would be a natural process not needing more complex things to explain it anymore than winter is more complex than spring.
However infinity does not need to result in using more complex to explain the complex.
It is no different than drawing a finite line on paper knowing mathematically it can have in infinite number of points between it the two ends.
It certainly can be an ongoing cycle like seasons changing, but that would not need something more complex to explain the complexity anymore winter is more complex to spring. It would simply be an eb and flow.
Laurence Krauss clearly states what nature is telling us, complexity is an outcome, not a starting point.
Even with the freaky things QM and string theory suggest, "all this" will still collapse to nothing, at that point it could be another QM twitch would lead to another big bang. But that would again, would be a natural process not needing more complex things to explain it anymore than winter is more complex than spring.
