I don't get it. Why can't it exist? What is it in its supposed eternal ticking that makes it impossible to exist? — god must be atheist

The second law of thermodynamics.

Yes, ostensibly a clock that has always been ticking cannot exist. — Down The Rabbit Hole

I don't get it. Why can't it exist? What is it in its supposed eternal ticking that makes it impossible to exist? — god must be atheist

Like Al-Ghazali's orbiting planets, it's not necessarily logically impossible, just counter-intuitive.

An infinitely ticking stopwatch is a better example - any number it shows would contradict its infinite ticks. Now that's logically impossible?

Like Al-Ghazali's orbiting planets, it's not necessarily logically impossible, just counter-intuitive — Down The Rabbit Hole

It's a physical impossibility. The 2nd law of TD requires a beginning in time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JeahffPMR5c

The alternative is something coming from literally nothing.

The alternative is something coming from literally nothing. — Down The Rabbit Hole

The alternative is repeated starts from zero.

The alternative is repeated starts from zero. — Cornwell1

You mean like an infinite series of big bangs?

Yes. One after another. For example, if the current universe has accelerated away to infinity, that a new one originates behind us. And then again for that one, etc.

What seems more far-fetched:
(1) something from literally nothing
(2) an infinite past? — Down The Rabbit Hole

I usually enjoy a good polling, but this question is a choice between logical absurdities, with no good reason to favour one absurdity over another. I haven't voted yet, so I don't know what the numbers are, but my guess would be about two thirds - something from nothing, and one third, an infinite past. Neither of them make any sense. I don't know what would. The universe is weird. It's like a prison with no bars; we exist, suspended between the infinitely big and the infinitely small, with no 'edge of the map' from which we might imply the nature of existence. It's bizzarre. Forced to choose, on the basis of cosmic expansion, I'll say something from nothing. The Big Bang Theory, but that's not to say I find it satisfying.

Yes. One after another. For example, if the current universe has accelerated away to infinity, that a new one originates behind us. And then again for that one, etc. — Cornwell1

You don't think something more basic such as a quantum field is a better explanation?

I usually enjoy a good polling, but this question is a choice between logical absurdities, with no good reason to favour one absurdity over another. I haven't voted yet, so I don't know what the numbers are, but my guess would be about two thirds - something from nothing, and one third, an infinite past. Neither of them make any sense. I don't know what would. The universe is weird. It's like a prison with no bars; we exist, suspended between the infinitely big and the infinitely small, with no 'edge of the map' from which we might imply the nature of existence. It's bizzarre. Forced to choose, on the basis of cosmic expansion, I'll say something from nothing. The Big Bang Theory, but that's not to say I find it satisfying. — karl stone

You're not impressed by the above arguments about an infinite series of big bangs?

It does seem absurd that something has existed forever with no explanation.

You don't think something more basic such as a quantum field is a better explanation? — Down The Rabbit Hole

Quantum fields are exactly the reason I think this will happen.

You're not impressed by the above arguments about an infinite series of big bangs? It does seem absurd that something has existed forever with no explanation. — Down The Rabbit Hole

I cannot write anything that makes sense - the idea that the universe 'came into being' seems just as crazy as the idea it exists eternally. I wish it would all just go away! But then what would there be? Nothing? How can there be nothing? How can time not pass? How can space not be space? Even empty space is space! And, if it's not empty - what is it full of? None of it makes sense!

You don't think something more basic such as a quantum field is a better explanation? — Down The Rabbit Hole

Quantum fields are exactly the reason I think this will happen. — Cornwell1

I mean as an explanation for where everything came from (such as Lawrence Krauss proposes).

The view you expressed of an infinite series of big bangs has no explanation for where it came from. In fact it never came from anywhere, it has always existed.

mean as an explanation for where everything came from (such as Lawrence Krauss proposes) — Down The Rabbit Hole

Krauss uses QFT and it's implications for the vacuum. He doesn't explain where the singularity itself, with virtual particles only comes from

The view you expressed of an infinite series of big bangs has no explanation for where it came from. In fact it never came from anywhere, it has always existed. — Down The Rabbit Hole

But it explains the mechanism of subsequent big bangs. There is no physical explanation where the infinity came from. It has been created by an extra mundane power, how else got it there. The power lives outside the domain of space and time, so even when spacetime is eternal and infinite that won't be proof of no divine beings.

I mean as an explanation for where everything came from (such as Lawrence Krauss proposes) — Down The Rabbit Hole

In Wikipedia he is quoted as saying, "Turtles all the way down" Has he gone beyond this view? I haven't read anything by him.

Krauss uses QFT and it's implications for the vacuum. He doesn't explain where the singularity itself, with virtual particles only comes from — Cornwell1

No, it is proposed as a simple default state. This is different from an infinite series of big bangs, as proposed by Roger Penrose?

But it explains the mechanism of subsequent big bangs. There is no physical explanation where the infinity came from. It has been created by an extra mundane power, how else got it there. The power lives outside the domain of space and time, so even when spacetime is eternal and infinite that won't be proof of no divine beings. — Cornwell1

Aren't you just pushing the question back, to where the "extra mundane power" came from? If your answer is that it has always existed, surely it would be simpler to just say the series of big bangs have always existed?

Aren't you just pushing the question back, to where the "extra mundane power" came from? If your answer is that it has always existed, surely it would be simpler to just say the series of big bangs have always existed? — Down The Rabbit Hole

This is where it gets interesting. You might indeed ask where the gods in their turn came from. But they don't exist in the way we or spacetime exist. There is no physical explanation why the universe is there. The only explanation why it displays the features it has can be by a preconceived plan. How can something showing the stuff we figure out by our theories exist on its own? Only creation by intelligent beings can be the cause. Asking where they come from is different from asking where the universe comes from.

I mean as an explanation for where everything came from (such as Lawrence Krauss proposes) — Down The Rabbit Hole

In Wikipedia he is quoted as saying, "Turtles all the way down" Has he gone beyond this view? I haven't read anything by him. — jgill

He says the question of whether there were other universes is "irrelevant". He appears to propose quantum fields as the default state of reality.

He says the question of whether there were other universes is "irrelevant". — Down The Rabbit Hole

It are those other universes that set the stage surrounding the singularity at the center of the spatially infinite universe. After each bang the singularity is "locked" only to be unlocked when a preceding universe is "over and done".

It's a physical impossibility. The 2nd law of TD requires a beginning in time. — Cornwell1

No, that is not true. The 2nd law states that thermal entropy can't decrease. But it allows it to stagnate. That's A. B. is that entropy possibly never reaches an end state... it will approach an end state, the amount of heat energy differential between a state and absolute depletion constantly decreasing, but decreasing slower and slower, and that lasting forever.

Further to my previous post, if you are skeptical about the heat energy not dissipating at all:
Imagine that the heat energy follows a function of the sort of f(x)=1/(e^x), where x is the total heat energy differential. In this case it has never started, but has gone on forever since infinite past, and it will will never end. In this case, absolute entropy would be represented by f(x)=0, which never happens.

It can last forever, which our universe does. When all mass has accelerated away to infinity all that will be left is pure potential energy, photons, with no mass. But a beginning is needed and even a prerequisite to give time a direction.

f(x)=1/(e^x), where x is the total heat energy differential — god must be atheist

?

What's the heat differential?

When all mass has accelerated away to infinity — Cornwell1

What do you mean? They have become infinitely heavy (full of mass)? Or their speed has become inifinitely large? or they reached a point in a distance far away which you call infinity?

Your entire claim hinges on this statement "When all mass has accelerated away to infinity" but I see no reason this can happen. Please explain what you mean. More precisely, because to me it makes no sense.

What's the heat differential? — Cornwell1

You quoted the 2nd Law of TD, and you ask that question?

Indeed. I can see no heat differential in your function.

Indeed. I can see no heat differential in your function. — Cornwell1

Thank you. I can't continue this argument until you learn what the 2nd Law of theromdynamics states, and until you learn how to read simple math equations.

I am sorry, I am not dissing you, and I am not trying to belittle you. I am just saying that if you can't understand my arguments, then there is no point in continuing.

In the menatime, we can continue on your claim "When all mass has accelerated away to infinity". What do you mean by this? a speed? an increase in mass? or a distance?

Okay...

In the menatime, we can continue on your claim "When all mass has accelerated away to infinity". What do you mean by this? a speed? an increase in mass? or a distance — god must be atheist

All mass in the universe tends towards chaos globally. As we see ordered structure time cannot have existed forever. We would see a state nowadays that will only be seen in the far future. All mass will be evaporated into photons then. Maximum entropy. This state will be the trigger for a new bang at the singularity at the origin. Two new universes will come into being. A new dawn of time. A new life...

Once all of existence will be nothing more than a timeless and massless memory, diluting into the oblivion on the waves of pure energy rushing into infinity, the sign is given for new life to burst into ull massive existence.

All mass in the universe tends towards chaos globally. As we see ordered structure time cannot have existed forever. We would see a state nowadays that will only be seen in the far future. All mass will be evaporated into photons then. Maximum entropy. This state will be the trigger for a new bang at the singularity at the origin. Two new universes will come into being. A new dawn of time. A new life... — Cornwell1

This is nice. No denying that. But that is all that it is.