An infinite, beginningless and eternal Universe is taken seriously by scientists.

[Jehanne]

From 21st Century Astronomy, 4th edition, a widely used undergraduate textbook in Astronomy (the 5th edition was recently released, but I have yet to buy it):

[GrandizerII]

But ... but ... but ... the "best" cosmological models are those that don't propose that the universe is eternal. Because otherwise, what good reason can there be for God of the Kalam Cosmological Argument to exist? Stop stomping so hardly on my beliefs like this!

[Mr.Obvious]

This kind of science and physics.


























My head.

Interesting stuff though.

[Jehanne]

But ... but ... but ... the "best" cosmological models are those that don't propose that the universe is eternal. Because otherwise, what good reason can there be for God of the Kalam Cosmological Argument to exist? Stop stomping so hardly on my beliefs like this!

The idea of a "god" (or, "gods") is very speculative, and unlike the multiverse, it is untestable, even in principle, as it makes no predictions about the world.

[Edwardo Piet]

I knew it!

Except I thought the universe was beginingness and eternal but finite. I guess time will tell if I'm right about that.

[Banned]

These concepts are not new, but revived by speculations about QM.
QM has it's limits, and whatever stems from it such as parallel universes, is pure fantasy.
Once the parameters of space and time are observed to be flexible, then there is always the imagination. But without knowing the contexts of space and time...it is just speculation.

Since space and time are products of the the supposed BB, it would be reasonable to speculate that infinite properties are contextual to finite ones, and it is just as reasonable to think that nothing/zero is a context.

The former makes our material universe the lesser article in terms of power, and the latter the greater.
With the observation of expected dark matter and other filler items, we soon admitted that the naturally observable universe is relatively insignificant to other forces.

The idea of infinite properties of space and time is a trend due to these findings, but it is possible that a finite system has the illusion of infinity, just as much as a hamster in a wheel has an endless road, without being a cruel trick.

[polymath257]

These concepts are not new, but revived by speculations about QM.
QM has it's limits, and whatever stems from it such as parallel universes, is pure fantasy.
Once the parameters of space and time are observed to be flexible, then there is always the imagination. But without knowing the contexts of space and time...it is just speculation.

Since space and time are products of the the supposed BB, it would be reasonable to speculate that infinite properties are contextual to finite ones, and it is just as reasonable to think that nothing/zero is a context.

The former makes our material universe the lesser article in terms of power, and the latter the greater.
With the observation of expected dark matter and other filler items, we soon admitted that the naturally observable universe is relatively insignificant to other forces.

The idea of infinite properties of space and time is a trend due to these findings, but it is possible that a finite system has the illusion of infinity, just as much as a hamster in a wheel has an endless road, without being a cruel trick.

 Given that everything we have seen is consistent with QM, exactly where are those limits? Care to detail why the limits are where you say?

We know that QM is counter to intuition in many ways. In particular, it is probabilistic and not deterministic and it is not a realist theory: things do not have definite properties unless observed. But those have both been verified extensively.

[Banned]

Given that everything we have seen is consistent with QM, exactly where are those limits? Care to detail why the limits are where you say?

We know that QM is counter to intuition in many ways. In particular, it is probabilistic and not deterministic and it is not a realist theory: things do not have definite properties unless observed. But those have both been verified extensively.

A few fantasies come from the probabilities decribed by QM.
But if both mathematics and natural order demonstrate that all areas of probabilty have high and low zones, it is not unreasonable to assume that there is what may be best illustrated as a path of least reistance for all matter and energy.

I'm suggesting that the universe we have is the only possible outcome, if not one of a few.

[Jehanne]

Given that everything we have seen is consistent with QM, exactly where are those limits? Care to detail why the limits are where you say?

We know that QM is counter to intuition in many ways. In particular, it is probabilistic and not deterministic and it is not a realist theory: things do not have definite properties unless observed. But those have both been verified extensively.

A few fantasies come from the probabilities decribed by QM.
But if both mathematics and natural order demonstrate that all areas of probabilty have high and low zones, it is not unreasonable to assume that there is what may be best illustrated as a path of least reistance for all matter and energy.

I'm suggesting that the universe we have is the only possible outcome, if not one of a few.

According to my spell checker, you have not studied Quantum Mechanics.

[Banned]

According to my spell checker, you have not studied Quantum Mechanics.

QM, like the other theories such as ST, assume that there aren't any greater causes to the existence and function of matter.

As far as the topic is concerned, while it cannot be determined when the (theoretical) BB occurred, because it supposedly started the parameter of time, then it may be just as logical to say that the universe is eternal, that it existed all the time, in which case it never had a beginning, and has no end.

But that's just playing with a single concept of time, it is ignoring all the other factors that require a source of power, purpose and intelligence etc.